[humanmarkup] Re: [humanmarkup TC] Assorted meeting notes - from Rob

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Thanks Rob. This is exactly the sort of consideration we need to look
at in the Base Primary Schema because, even though we are not
creating an OO class system, our work will be used in such systems.
Now I am not about to suggest that try to consider all possible
ramifications for the decisions we make about this initial set of
elements and attributes, but such considerations as you mention come
directly out of the application area of VR-AI, and as such, requre us
to understand this as best we can.

What this brings up is the notion that I will be getting to in
bodyLocation when I finally tackle it, because it has implications in
VR, as in VRML97, H-Anim terminology, and Medical, Biometric, and
Identification considerations, too. So, while the problem with that
is different than the problem with artifacts, they both derive from
the necessity of laying an accurate foundation for our subsequent
schemata. So, this is good to see.

BTW. I am using the word problem in the sense of problematic, not
difficulty, although understanding does pose difficulties of its own.
But, THAT, is another matter.

Thanks again,
Rex



At 11:38 AM -0500 5/19/02, Rob Nixon wrote:
>Hello everyone, sorry for the delay.
>
>Here are a few notes related to the discussion we had during our monthly
>HumanML Technical Committee conference call on the 15th.  Many of these
>are my thoughts on the subjects discussed, so any “naïve” thoughts on the
>topics at hand are entirely my responsibility.   I tend to speak in the
>languages of physics, mathematics, and systems sciences, so I’m sure that
>there are other more appropriate ways to present this material.  There
>are also overlaps with the concepts underlying the semantic web approach.
>
>These notes are not meant to send us wildly off course, but rather to
>make sure that we have explored our assumptions.
>
>1). ARTIFACTS:
>
>a) The “meaning” assigned to an artifact can change over time.
>
>b) The derived meaning at any given time is associated with the cultural
>framework in which it is considered.
>
>c) There can be many parallel (in time) meanings assigned to an artifact,
>with each meaning deriving from different cultural (or group) frameworks.
>
>d) It’s possible that an Artifact can act as more than a noun in that an
>Artifact can act (and I would argue almost always act) as a “signal”
>within the perceptual field of the perceiver.
>
>e) As an overly simplistic model, Artifacts can be thought of as the
>nodes of a network, with beliefs acting as the connections between the
>nodes.  Clusters of these nodes and connections, can be thought of as
>context, with the entire network viewed as the knowledge and experience
>of the individual perceiver.
>
>f) By treating each network as a surface(of arbitrary dimension) we can
>add time into the model as a series of  stacked surfaces with the
>“artifact” nodes connected to their corresponding nodes in the surface
>“beneath”.  The evolution of the meaning of the “Artifacts” over time can
>be viewed as a series of vectors, where these vectors may fork, continue
>through, or dead end ( as the artifacts may separate into multiple
>artifacts upon examination, remain consistent, or actually be lost in the
>physical or in memory).  This process can be viewed as a type of Cellular
>Automata (CA).
>
>g) These connected series of vectors can be thought of as a trajectory
>through the knowledge and experience “space” of the individual
>perceiver.  You will also find that there is a type of “momentum”
>associated with these trajectories as groups of related “artifacts” and
>the connecting beliefs about those artifacts reinforce each other.   It
>takes more to shift the perspectives (in relation to the artifacts) as
>time goes on if they have been reinforced.
>
>h) It should also be understood that each individual perceiver can be
>viewed as a node in a cultural and social network (which is hierarchical
>in nature)  with (feedback loops) interconnecting the artifact nodes (
>and beliefs ) among the interacting individuals.
>
>i) Artifacts can also act as a pointer to a series of Metaphors, or in
>and of itself act as a “Metaphoric” node.
>
>j) In essence a (manufactured) Artifact can also be viewed as the
>“condensation” of “meaning” out of the knowledge and information field of
>the individual or the group.
>
>k) It is also important to understand that when we are dealing with
>“Artifacts” (objects) within Virtual Simulations, the concept of linear
>time and cause and effect can no longer be viewed as it has been
>traditionally.
>
>If for example I am running a series of simultaneous “Simulations” each
>based on a specific time period ( i.e.  1920, 1930, 1940, 1970, 1993,
>2002) and I share an (Artifact – a book, a building, a coin) “object”
>among them (that contains “Static Data Members”, “Static Member
>Functions” ) I will run into a problem with potential cause and effect if
>we use a simple linear view of time.
>
>The following example should highlight the problem:
>
>If for instance my six simulations utilize a class of object called
>“Book”, each of the six simulations will contain their own object
>“instantiations” of the book class.  You can think of the “Book Class” as
>the Archetype of a Book, and each instantiation of the Book Archetype in
>each simulation as the “physical manifestation” of the Book Archetype.
>In this sense each of the books in the six different simulated periods
>have no relation to each other (other than “Bookness”) and therefore can
>not effect each other.  However, if we include data and functions called
>“Static Data Members” or “Static Member Functions” in our Book Class (
>Archetype ), then we create a link between ALL instantiations of books in
>ALL simulations.
>
>The reason for this is that the Static Data Members and Functions are
>associated with the CLASS and not the individual book objects in each
>simulation.  So if we had (for what ever reason) static data members
>called “Highest Catalogue Number” and “Date Assigned” which were used to
>assign the next instantiated books catalogue number in any given
>simulation,  all books everywhere in all simulations would access that
>“Highest Catalogue Number”.   Here is the problem,  let us say for the
>sake of argument that when we start our six simultaneous simulations (
>ie. Boston – 1920,1930, 1940, 1970, 1993, and 2002 ) that it just so
>happens that the first “book” object is instantiated in the 1970
>simulation.  The catalogue number “1” is assigned to that book instance,
>and the date of “April 5, 1970” is recorded in the Static Data member
>called “Date Assigned”.
>
>Now it just so happens that since the start of our six simulations the
>next instantiation of a book occurs in the 1930 simulation.  The local
>simulation sees that there has already been one book assigned, and so it
>updates the “Highest Catalogue Number”  to 2.  What it discovers however
>is that from it’s (the particular simulations perspective) the first book
>was assigned 40 years in it’s future, so in effect, it has experienced
>and effect from the future.  A simple time stamping of events in this
>case would lead to chaos and confusion.  Now if we update the Date
>Assigned for this second instantiated book to Feb 23, 1930, from the
>perspective of the 1970 simulation it has just had it’s past changed by
>something occurring in the 1930 simulation.
>
>This again is only meant as a simple example of my point.  The goal hear
>is not to pick apart the example or to say that no one would ever do
>this, or that this would simply be a bug, or to justify that these
>effects as being in entirely different times lines.  I am trying to point
>out that there can be non-linear, a-temporal effects in simulations and
>we must at least consider this as we discuss “artifacts” and “knowledge”,
>and “meaning”.
>
>The concept of time in this venue (and I would argue our own) can only be
>viewed as a series of events and not as a single linear sequence we tend
>to think of it as.  It would also be possible to set up a series of
>complex feedback loops that would involve interactions between the 1930
>and 1970 simulations that would be hard if not impossible to explain from
>the perspective of VR characters in each of those simulations.
>
>From the perspective of the VR characters, knowledge from the future
>would be mysterious and unexplainable.  And from the perspective of the
>VR Quantum Theorist, experiencing the bizarre effect of having  the
>results of a previously carried out experiment apparently fall into line
>with information only more recently taken into count suddenly becomes
>understandable.
>
>If our VR simulations are going to model our own weird “experience” they
>must incorporate mechanisms of this nature, and therefor require us to at
>least explore these concepts as we define a useful XML HumanML dialect.
>
>The previous points have been greatly simplified for clarity ( I hope ).
>The goal of the previous points have been to illustrate that the concept
>of an “Artifact” as a simple noun is insufficient.   I believe that
>rather than viewing an (artifact)/“Signal” as an interruption in a static
>field (as was discussed during the meeting), that they should be viewed
>as semi-recurrent / semi-stable dynamic “processes” (or eddies) in a
>fluid field (where “fluid” describes a dynamic network structure.)
>
>Regarding:
>
>2. ADDRESSES ( as well as many other attributes )
>
>We must allow for multiple concurrent addresses, as well as a historical
>list or tree of address ( again as we move forward and backward ) in time
>related to VR simulations (leaving out our non-linear time effects
>previously discussed).
>
>Again, these are all only points to consider.
>
>Rob


--