OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

humanmarkup message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [humanmarkup] Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human


Hi James,

No, this is not too picky at all. In fact it is a good point, and one 
which, in dealing with the computing process and the web and xml in 
particular we haven't specified exactly how these academic 
necessities would be included. We have said that our vocabularies 
must not contradict or break existing, academically accepted schools 
of thought and classification systems, but for the purposes of 
building a workable language we have for the most part allowed that 
the language itself, and the computing environment is not capable of 
ascertaining the actual truth of any entity's assertion of being, or 
representing itself as, human. So, we reason, the less we concern 
ourselves with the factual definition of human, the easier will be 
the job of including or allowing for any and all such definitions 
which application builders wish to include in applications which use 
HumanML.

In terms of certification, authentication, security and the 
delegation of rights and privileges which are necessary for the 
societal use of the web, we have deferred, saying that our 
information will apply only to a greater depth of personal 
information beyond these legal and social necessities.

In terms of what you are seeking, we have held that we should not 
enter into those debates. However, now that you are bringing it up, 
and this is exactly the time and place for this discussion, we need 
to decide.

What we need in our Primary Base Schema is a definition that will 
support the uses reflected in these concerns which you bring forth. I 
would have to say that, given what I have just said, it would be good 
for you to suggest what you think, to the best of your knowledge, 
ought to be in a basic definition of the element human in order to 
make it useful and accurate for these purposes.

So, I invite any all to join in and let us know what we need to specify here.

Ciao,
Rex

At 12:56 PM -0500 8/26/02, James.Landrum wrote:
>Perhaps this is a bit too picky, but I have a question for the TC:
>What is the HUML working definition for "Human" ("Human Being")?
>  Most academics refer to human beings as "anatomically modern humans"
>e.g., living and dead members of the Genus Homo, Species sapiens,
>Subspecies sapiens: "Homo sapiens sapiens." or are we simply referring to
>Genus Homo and Species sapiens (Homo sapiens) as is the general trend?
>With regard for Anthropology discipline, and subfields of  Cultural
>Anthropology, Physical Anthropology, Biological Anthropology, Medical
>Anthropology, Paleoanthropology, Archaeology (ad infinitum), and also
>fields of Paleontology, Biology, Evolutionary Biology, etc., it is
>important to designate and define the scope and range of things human as
>those which are in some manner, shape, or form appurturrent to Homo
>sapiens sapiens. Note that there should also be schema for reference to
>other members of the Hominid line, particularly those from which Homo
>sapiens sapiens is descended (according to theories),  for example,  Home
>ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo habilis (note other species as well,
>particularly the debate on Neanderthalensis)  and predecessors, e.g.,
>Australopithecines, and so forth. Please note that there is great debate
>regarding taxonomic and phylogenic classification of specimens within
>this arena.; researchers are, depending on perspective, embroiled in
>several controversies regarding the taxonomic and phylogenic trees,
>arguing (literally as well as figuratively) that one or more attributes
>of specimens are evidence for closer or more distant relationship and
>position on the tree(s). I need to summarize this anyway (for DANA and
>AnthML) so will prepare a short discussion and include diagrams and
>charts of the issues, drawing from the major papers on the topic.
>
>
>
>
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>>  Good morning, Human Markup!
>>
>>  human
>>
>>  This is a ComplexType, not abstract, belongs to the attribute group
>  > of humlIdentifierAtts and does not reference other elements.
>>
>>  This is the largest single container in our language, and as Len
>>  correctly points out is possibly the root element of the schema. I
>>  would say it is.
>>
>>  Isn't it odd that the very crux of our effort has so little that it
>>  is appropriate to say about it? It will require a name which is to
>>  say that the collection of characteristics for each particular
>>  instance of this element will define a name, and this name will have
>>  the type humlNameAtts.
>>
>>  This is a true case of less equalling more because the less we say
>>  about this element here, the more characteristics it can contain. I
>>  briefly thought that we might want to allow for another element which
>>  I would call agent or humanAgent to represent bots, but decided that
>>  that would add too much overhead for distinguishing between the
>>  representation of an actual, currently living, biological human being
>>  and a software entity. Since both agents and humans will be compared
>>  against the identifying information they assert for themselves,
>>  taking all such entities at face value simplifies the task of
>>  handling and tracking interactive behavior while little purpose is
>>  served by adding another set of computations to recognize a
>>  distinction that will not matter to machines and can't be instantly
>>  verified by human end-users/clients.
>>
>>  Ciao,
>>  Rex
>>  --
>>  Rex Brooks
>>  Starbourne Communications Design
>>  1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
>>  http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com
>>
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>  manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>--
>From the desk of James [Jim] E. Landrum III
>NDSU Archaeology Materials and Technologies Laboratories
>URL = http://atl.ndsu.edu
>Digital Archive Network for Anthropology (DANA).
>DANA URL = http://atl.ndsu.edu/archive
>Email: <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
>Phone: 701-231-8059
>FAX: 701-231-1047
>Voice Mail: 701-231-4228


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC