[humanmarkup] This Month's Meeting Minutes

We are now involved in the process of writing our Primary Base Human Markup Language XML Schema under the direction of Len Bullard, our Invited Expert. To facilitate this process, Rex Brooks has initiated a method to proceed by discussing each element currently contained in the Phase 0 HumanML Schema Toolkit available through the TC website.

These items are arranged alphabetically in the document itself, and Rex proposed that we maintain that structure in our work as a way to move forward methodically. It was agreed, with the note that it is clear that we will be adding elements as we go, but these will be collected separately for discussion after we have proceeded through the list we have. It was also agreed that we would maintain the TC policy of keeping our discussions of each element within the thread Subject Line which will take the form of "Base Schema-element name" with successive comments rendered through standard email replies. Thus we will have a thorough record of our email discussions about these elements as we proceed.

We had a brief discussion, in the process of acquainting Philip with the most basic tenet of our work, which are the distinctions of sign, signal and symbol from Semiotics Studies, which we used to also acquaint him with the Yahoo archives of our Phase 0 work, which includes the bibliographies and links for the research we conducted. We then returned to the focus of the meeting on our Base Schema elements.

We had, up to the meeting, looked at the first two elements: address and artifact.

While there was some discussion about the necessity for providing a classification or indexing method, or attribute, for the address element to distinguish between residential addresses, work addresses, email addresses, etc. and changes in these values over time, necessitating a temporal attribute, as well, most of our discussion related to the implications of the artifact element.

However, before moving on to artifact, it should be noted that the discussion of address did turn up some previously unanticipated concerns.

First, there was an obvious question of sustaining a clear connection with identification authentication and certification mechanisms and the data kept in that regard. This was known previously, what was new was the notion of the time-binding attribute, if indeed such a mechanism in XML ought to be an attribute of various elements, or an element of its own that would be used as a consistent child element for other elements. This was passed by rather quickly, which is why it is being specifically mentioned here.

Second, the time-binding, or temporal aspect, while not specifically mentioned in depth in this particular connection, needed to be explained as part of another set elements which will be used later, namely Chronemics. Again, this is mentioned here because it was passed over rather more quickly than it perhaps ought to have been. There are some very serious concerns connected with the distinction between a temporal element requiring some value such as "current" or "changed on 00/00/0000" or some other wording along those lines, and Chronemics which concerns such issues as cultural context for values such as "anticipation" and "readiness" in regard to such things as "willingness to wait" and "punctuality." It has been noted, here.

In moving on to the artifact element, we began noticing that the Schema Toolkit is based, as is XML. largely on nouns in terms of operational language, and we think we may need, in order to do what our charter requires, verbs and other operational language. This was mentioned in the original email initiating the discussion of this element, but the more wide-ranging implications did not surface until our meeting.

One other aspect of this lack of verbs per se, was the mention made that the one element in the Toolkit which does provide a basis for such operational language for us in our use of Semiotics, is the element signal, which Rex requested be dealt with in its turn, rather than abandon the essentially unbiased methodology of using alphabetical order a the basis for our examination of the Base Schema Toolkit.

Briefly, the artifact element, which stands for objects such as clothing and jewelry--as a symbol--communicates various concepts about a human's culture and behavior and beliefs. As such, it is a result of an act of human creation, for which we do not have a verb. The term itself comes from artifice as a verb.

In the discussion which followed a number of concepts surfaced which Rob Nixon volunteered to chronicle separately in order to keep track of them. This seems like a good adjunct to the policy of also collecting up new elements separately as well. Due to that, it won't be attempted in these minutes to capture that entire conversation, though a few highlights will be mentioned.

No attempt at a chronological account is being made in the items that follow, since note taking became problematical during our discussion in terms of concepts derived from one or another of these items tended to refer or relate to earlier and later discussions, so please don't assume that one item led to another in the order I present them. I will use the option of bulleting these items in order to call this out as a non-chornological part of this meeting's minutes.

* Artifacts, alphabetically, are the first door into the area of culture, which concerns Human Markup greatly, so we need to be especially careful in the way we deal with it, because it is creating a de facto methodology. This brings up one essential fault in the procedural decision to deal with elements in any particular order.

However, what this concern in itself brought out is that artifacts act as association nodes, or meta-conceptual objects. Teasing out specific cultural, or wider social meanings will require attention.

* Artifacts also point out the way in which elements can be nouns yet have verb-equivalent attributes from which operations and/or methods can be derived.

Philip volunteered to work up a way to use this to create a "grammar" that could be used in programming.

* Artifacts act as compression points for cultural, scientific, economic and other contexts. Rob mentioned this and Philip readily agreed, and while this writer still doesn't quite grasp exactly what they mean, both of them have volunteered to explore this connection more thoroughly in separate posts.

* Artifacts also pose the question of what a culture is.

This prompted a discussion that included the notion that artifacts needn't be physical, at least not in the sense of being a physical object such as a bracelet or a necklace, or a burka. Again, due to a lack of knowledge and experience, the writer doesn't quite grasp this, though the idea that the concept of an artifact can symbolize a wealth of connotations is clear. How that symbol exists separate from an object, or the representation of a physical object in digital information terms is not clear. No doubt we will hear more on this. (I hate to sound so utterly literal but could this notion of non-physicality be explained by the example of a perfume, which simply can't be worn or carried or used physically as an object but can be "worn" and can operate as an artifact?)

* Artifacts also have time-bound meanings, and this aspect, along with the notion of artifacts as compression points deserves to be explored more thoroughly.

* Artifacts can act as educational devices.

humanmarkup message