[humanmarkup] Meeting Agenda

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to get the Agenda Items out early today. I have worked on them over the weekend, so you have quite a bit of explanatory material for each item. We have a lot of work to get done this session. That's why I have tried to elucidate each more fully than normal, which isn't difficult since we don't usually have a set agenda for normal ongoing work. Well, October 31, 2002 is different from March 31, 2002 for a number of reasons.

While we will be hitting only our second major deliverable for this year, hopefully, it still represents positive progress and that lends us more credence on the simple face of it. In many respects this may be the most important milestone we ever achieve. This is because, if my intuition about the current state of affairs in web standards efforts is even partially accurate, we can look forward to a significant increase in both our membership and in the difficulty we face reaching our second major milestone and the individual application area subcommittee sub-specificifactions that are to follow on.

The reasons for this are:

* web services and web security (aka single-sign-on-authentication and personalization information formats and policies) will be delivering their initial specifications in the early quarters of 2003. The two TCs I belong to in this arena, WSIA-WSRP, are scheduled to deliver version 1.0 of the Interface Specification in January 2003, though that scheduling is, I think, a bit too aggressive;

* once we have a specification submitted for the OASIS approval process, our status as a TC will be enhanced and so will our reputation as a serious effort to standardize what will eventually be the single most important aspect of the web--individual information. And that will be the single most important source of marketing research and resources, so there will be an imperative for the corporate world to co-opt this effort one way or another for their own (from their viewpoint) very legitimate reasons, so we will have much more attention than we have previously, though this may take a few months (I hope.);

* the very first set of sample applications we produce will, and, I think, must include a specific set of interoperable (but secondary-not primary) individual identification items gathered into a simple program that can be immediately implemented once a national and/or International authentication standard is established, for greater depth of preferential information (this should be a priority, even if it looks as if there is are as few as two major contenders, as opposed the current set of many--but it seems unfair that we actually must court the very attention which will make our work so much more difficult, proving, no doubt, that virtue is its own punishment.);

* the semiotic processor, which I hope is among the first sample implementations, however we configure it in terms of licensing and IPR, will, once it is understood, very likely set the computing world on its collective ears--this marks what is called a sea change [(see:

http://istpub.berkeley.edu:4201/bcc/Fall2001/feat.2ndgenweb.html )

by associating content with clear categories of communication identified by: type, eg. advertisement, press release, academic study, etc; level of abstraction, eg. simple statement-level 1-no response or interaction requested/allowed, simple question-level 1-response requested/required, etc; and, cultural context, eg, American Spanish/English-speaking, mid-income, Catholic, Mixed Mexican/Mestizo, Southwest Geographic Region]; (Note, this description is a rough approximation of the second level of semiotic processing, after the initial work on identifying semiotic entities and levels of abstraction have been completed--the world will probably not get excited about that because it will sound like a foreign language to them, but once we have those concepts solidified and encoded, we start capturing information in automatically useful categories from the outset of any web-based communications and this is what will set the semantic web on its ears, while making it useful at the same time.)

Agenda items:

1. Primary Base Schema--Status Report--where do we stand, how will we wrap it up. Do we need another meeting for end of month?

2. Requirements--Extensibility Mechanisms, makes the HM. Requirements reach a new version number (Looks good, right? Rhetorical Question, we shoulda thoughta that...)

3. Adjunct to Model Processes Using HumanML Elements, with Len, hopefully, expanding a bit on what we need to do here.

4. RDFS to specify resources, measurement systems per Primary Base Schema Elements, in which the writer will attempt to chat with Manos again before the meeting.

5. Semiotic Processor for the Primary Base Schema starting at simplest levels--In essence developing its own Primary Base specification for processing communications in the most accurate way for correlating levels of abstraction between communicants--this could be one of the sample implementations since we have the sign, signal and symbol in the Primary Base Schema.

6. Subcommittees plans to move forward into Secondary Base Schema enumerations with RDF resource schemata to service each set of derived enumerations

7. We need to begin thinking about sample applications since OASIS requires 3 independent applications using the specification as part of the approval process.

Here are my initial suggestions for some sample implementations:

        --The semiotic processor (See 5)
        --The preferential ID material (See third sequential bullet point above)
        --A VRML/X3D starter Human (basically done:

http://www.starbourne.com/X3D

but needs to be a VRML world window and have some very basic animated behaviors programmed for a Chat Application Introduction with chat typed and sound, if possible using speech synthesis, saying: "Hi, I'm rexb, avatar for [HUMAN: Name:] Rex Brooks; Whose address is [Address: Number/Street:] 1361A Addison; [City:] Berkeley; [State:] California; [Postal Code:] 94702")

I think that James Landrum and Rob Nixon may be able to cast some collaborative work that they are doing so that it can be used as a sample implementation or a sample implementation that can use the data they collect in an upcoming collaboration.

I suggest we keep the implementations separate even though they could be combined so that it is clear that they are separate implementations.

We need more suggestions.

All this and Global Attributes, too. What more could we want?

Another Rhetorical Question.

Ciao,
Rex

P.S. Here is the info again.

humanmarkup message