humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-culture
- From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
- To: humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org, cognite@zianet.com, clbullar@ingr.com,kurt@kurtcagle.net, mbatsis@netsmart.gr
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 06:55:27 -0700
Title: PBS-Doc-culture
As with the community element, culture
required little change despite the lengthy discussions, though these
were somewhat less than community because we did not need to consider
more basic semiotic terminology which forms a basis of the
"shared" concept.
Please Note: There are numerous links to
research which bears on this concept in the scholarly
literature.
It will be important to review this in
working on the Secondary Schema.
Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-culture
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 10:02:03 -0700
Hi Everyone,
I'm pushing my self to get this new
element discussion going this
week, rather than wait until I have put
in the further thought it
deserves, because it ties into the
sequence of humanGroup, community
and culture. And I want to make sure it
stays closely associated in
our memories rather than letting
another weekend separate it from
the discussion of community.
culture
This is ComplexType with the attribute
of abstract. I agree with that
but I do think that it will reference
community and humanGroup. That
does not mean that I think it needs to
have a formal derivation
because it is so widely used to mean so
many different aspects of
social life that we cannot preclude
uses to which we might not agree,
or which do not adhere to our specific
definitions. What I do think
is that, once we have thoroughly chewed
on it so that we know what we
need it to mean for HumanML purposes,
is to apply our huml: prefix to
it in order to have its use in HumanML
adhere to the definitions we
eventually prescribe.
That is a long way to say that we need
to co-opt this term for our
use in a way that clearly distinguishes
it from more common usage,
and allows us to use the more common
definitions without diluting our
use of the term as an element in our
Base Schema. We may decide to do
this with a number of terms, and we
will have to be careful in
formulating our overall specification
so that such terms that have
dual purpose are clearly understood to
have specific meanings when
prefixed with huml:
This is, as it is with all our
elements, prefigured by belonging to
the attribute group
humlIdentifierAtts.
We may want to enlarge upon the
description of this element as Human
Culture Cultural characteristics. I
think we should enlarge upon that
description, however, before I get into
that, I thought it better to
discuss this much first.
What I think is that we want to set the
stage for cultural modules,
moving up the ladder of abstraction
from humanGroup to community to
culture to...
But that is for later.
Have an interesting weekend.
Ciao,
Rex
--
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:16:00 -0500
We may find that culture is another way
of saying
choice of available media. That
is, it includes
the sign systems in use by some
community and the
media by which they are
transported.
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol1-2/Ipsen%20semiotics%20and%20history%20media.htm
Comments?
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 11:23:22 -0700
I'm not sure about choice per se, but
culture is certainly
expressed/shared through media and
somewhat characterized by the
manner in which the sign systems are
transported, i.e. the use made
of available media. Few cultures, I
think, actually choose among
available media, though some do, as in
preferring an oral tradition,
or the person-to-person exchange for
core cultural sharing, such as
secret handshakes.
Thanks for the paper--sheesh. I thought
I wished YOU an interesting weekend.
Ciao ;-)
Rex
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: 'Rex Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:33:54 -0500
If you go up a level, that is part of
the SEED collection
and there are some really fascinating
articles. The
one on quantum mind is a hard read but
fascinating in
the notion that consciousness emerges
from engagement
with the environment, a topic that
shows up in several
of the papers. Consider a set of
sign systems that
to be handled simultaneously, (remember
the Gudwin
model of intelligence), result in the
creation or
emergence of relationships (for us,
possibly expressed
as topic maps) that enable
coordination. It is a
neat model. Some of our
containers would then
become the topic map systems
perhaps.
People do choose among media and that
by engagement
with and reinforcement by the
environment. That is
why I insist on the choice of choices
(choosing who
chooses the choices) as a prerequisite
freedom for
governance. If the universe is a
sign production
system (one model but useful), then
when you got
up the morning to dress, what did you
choose to
wear and who chose your available
clothes? And
even if you had one message in mind for
the clothes,
how would your nearest significant
person interpret
your choices, how would the first
person you met
on the street interpret them, and so
on. As you
move from locale to locale and
therefore the types
of people you encounter changes, how do
the
interpretations change according to the
way each
of the locales change the perceptions
of your choices
in that medium? Now, consider
that you have chosen
a route as well.
Back to reading. I sure have to
read a lot to keep
up with Sylvia. Every number has
two neighbors.
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>,'Rex
Brooks' <rexb@starbourne.com>,
humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 08:24:40 -0700
Title: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-culture
Since the paper Len referred us to
specifically states that reproduction is not allowed without
permission, I will have to paraphrase, and because I'm short on time,
I will add my own comments as I go, but suffice it to say that the
element culture appears to require some specific semiotic analysis,
and will be, of necessity, included in the semiotic experiment, so,
much as with community, which led to a common derivative antecedet in
humanGroup, culture is also part and parcel inextricably entwined with
semiotic thought. I doubt we could have planned it better. So I
will take advantage of serendipity and synchronicity and tie culture
into semiotic analysis.
Briefly the paper points out that
cultural semiotics needs to consider the history of media, largely
referred to in the academic literature as the history of technology,
as a key component of, and inseparable from, semiotic development--the
history of semiotic systems, sign systems if you will--in a mutual
system. Thus cultural development is a semiotic process that includes
and to a large extent is influenced by the development of
media.
Culture has been described as the sum
of information and the means of organizing it. Media is a form, some
argue the defining form, of organizing information, and so cultures
can be expressed as information communities, or as Len implies, sign
systems largely defined by the media through which they are shared, or
transmitted. I'll have to say that I agree with this, even though I
keep looking for ways to challenge this system of analysis simply
because it makes for livelier discussions. Sigh, to be honest, I
haven't found any such yet.
In the article to which Len posted the
url, I found one telling definition which I am going to suggest best
describes the true state of the boolean for culture which Len has
included in the straw man toolkit:
description: culture is the community
of interpreters that shares the same sum of experience.
Since I added the words, culture is, I
significantly changed the meaning of the phrase I lifted from the
article, so I doubt I infringed upon the copyright.
Now, naturally, there will be no two
individual members of any community for which this idealized sum is
exactly equal, and it will be in determining the limits of congruity
which will define membership in any given culture. That will the task
of those who draw those lines, not us, although some of us may join in
that effort. As usual, I am going to give it more study.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: "James.Landrum"
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:51:15 -0500
A condensed definition of culture,
which may perhaps be more easily be transposed into the boolean:
"Culture is shared
knowledge."
In the above definition of culture,
"experience" is implied, as are "behavior" and
"actor."
(Note: "Interpreter", as in
Rex's definition (what he calls a description) "culture is the
community of
interpreters that shares the same sum
of experience," is too restrictive. No 2 people interpret
in exactly the
same way, as
their individual sum of experiences are not identical, despite being
part of a community; one can experience cultural manifestations
without strictly interpreting them, or can misinterpret the
manifestation. Salience is an issue here- e.g., meaningful
interpretation of culture, or cultural behavior, implies insider
knowledge. In the above definition, "shared knowledge"
implies the ability to communicate meaningfully, that is to say, if
one cannot transmit information meaningfully, crucial, or core,
cultural knowledge is not shared. The crux of the latter point
is that if there is miscommunication, cultural knowledge is not
understood appropriately, if at all, and although there may be
misinterpretation or miscommunication in the process of information
exchange, sharing does occur- and that is culture in
process).
review the following URLs for
discussions on baseline definitions of culture:
Baseline Definition of Culture
(WSU)
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culture-definition.html
A Definition of Culture (U.
Manitoba)
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/culture.html
Definition of Culture (Slippery Rock
University)
http://www.sru.edu/depts/artsci/ges/discover/d-4-1.htm
"Culture: The learned patterns of
thought and behavior characteristic of a population or
society."
Marshall Soules' "Toward a
Definition of Culture" (Malaspina CC)
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~soules/media112/culture.htm
Culture: Some Definitions (Southern
Illinois University)
http://www.siu.edu/~ekachai/culture.html
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "James.Landrum" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex
Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:37:38 -0700
Title: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-culture
Thanks,
James,
I will review the material in the URLs
and I am sure it will be helpful. I must admit that I was so immersed
in the semiotics of the article and the resources it led to in turn,
that I did not make it clear that the restriction was meant to be the
most atomistic definition. I agree with you that it was a definition
not description--description is the terminology of xml schema. This
illustrates what may be the necessity for distinguishing between a
strict huml-prefixed-namespace definition of certain terms and the
more broad, and widely used definitions. I'm not saying that we need
this, only that we may.
By "interpreter" I was
meaning semiote as defined by Sylvia Candelaria deRam previously, and
I'm afraid that even in my own mind I was overlapping the semiotic
experiment with the more focused discussion of the element: culture
from the straw man schema. Also, and I admit that I was wrong headed
in this, I was laying out the foundation for specifying particular
cultures along the lines we had noodled out a little more than a year
ago which would involve a hierarchy of attributes like geographical
location, historical context, etc.
Since our aim is to reduce
miscommunication, here is a good example. I look forward to reviewing
the material. I expect we will be at work on this term for a little
while. This is one of the most important elements, so we need to get
this one pinned down as accurately as we can.
Thanks, again,
Rex
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: "James.Landrum"
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:05:02 -0500
Thanks for the clarifications Rex.
I must admit I have been out of touch
with a number of Humanmarkup activities and the comments of late, and
am admittedly a newbie in this initiative, and seem to have somehow
lost sense of the thread on the issues, and would appreciate some
direction. Particularly, I am having difficulty locating the strawman
toolkit referred to in previous posts. I will take some time today
reviewing that if pointed at it.
Also, with regard for structured
vocabularies and source origins for terminology, the Getty Art and
Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) may be a useful resource for
consideration of choice of definitions of terms applied in
Humanmarkup, at least insofar as the TC deems appropriate or
applicable within constraint of context.
see
http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabulary/aat/
for example, enter keyword
"culture" and then try "artifact",
Note also, for further example, that
the AAT does not have base definition of "community"
Note also that a number of markup
language initiatives, particularly those in the cultural heritage
sector, cite
AAT as an authoritative structured
vocabulary (among others).
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "James.Landrum" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex
Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:03:29 -0700
Title: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-culture
This is the address of the Schema which
you can download:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup/files/Technical/XML.Schema/XML.Schema/
This is also a link to this url on the
OASIS Humanmarkup TC website under the documents section.
We are striving to ensure that our
vocabularies harmonize with the most widely accepted schools of
thought for various topic areas.. The Yahoo site remains from our
pre-OASIS period, called Phase 0 in the OASIS TC website. We have a
fairly extensive webliography there
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup) in the General Info
directory in the files section from that period, which included 6
months of discussion and research before we applied to and was
accepted by OASIS.
Thanks for the AAT url, I have looked
at it and it appears very useful.
I think the time has come for me to
devote some time to reorganizing our material. Actually, I have had it
scheduled for August since April, so it is more a matter of getting
down to it. I have just a wee bit more work to do on my generic
VRML/X3D Basic Human Models to make them ready to include in our
discussions as we proceed onward to finalizing our Base Schema and
seeing what develops from the semiotic experiment Len and Sylvia are
working on. If you missed my announcement a couple of weeks ago, I
have worked out a kind of skeleton for the facial musculature to go
along with the ISO standard for Humanoid Animation as part of the
VRML97 standard for inclusion in the next version which has already
advanced to a single mesh from a collection of body part segments.
This will allow us to agree upon kinesic bodily gestures and facial
expressions to accompany our work. You can see an animated gif and
download an .avi of the same sequence showing how the facial animation
works: http://www.starbourne.com/X3D.html
Then I will have no excuse not to
proceed with the reorganization which I have targetted to have done by
late August early September.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>,"James.Landrum"
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:30:28 -0700
Title: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-culture
Well, Here I am, replying to my own
posts again, but be that as it may, I have gone through the
resources
that James recommended, at least to a
cursory extent. I usually leave the research to everyone to do on
their own, but, because culture is such
an important concept for HumanML, I'm going to get down into the
trenches a bit here.
This is from
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/culture.html
Although there is no standard
definition of culture, most alternatives incorporate the Boasian
postulates as in
the case of Bates and Plog's offering,
which we shall
accept as a working version:
Culture: The system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviours,
and artifacts that the members of
society use to cope with their world
and
with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to
generation through learning (p7).
This is a complex definition and points
to four important characteristics stressed by cultural
relativists:
1.symbolic composition,
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/culture.html
2.systematic patterning,
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/patterning.html
3.learned
transmission,
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/learned.html
4.societal grounding,
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/122/module1/social.html
I'm including it along with the
following because together they are fairly thorough, and I think we
may want
to consider the combined totality, with
the links connected to the numbered items above, as a good
standard
for the more widely used meaning for
culture.
The following is from
http://www.siu.edu/~ekachai/culture.html
CULTURE: SOME DEFINITIONS
According to Samovar and Porter (1994),
culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience,
beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religion,
notions of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe,
and material objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in
the course of generations through individual and group striving.
Gudykunst and Kim (1992) see culture as
the systems of knowledge shared by a relatively large group of
people.
Other definitions:
Culture is communication, communication is culture. (Edward T.
Hall)
Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior; that is the
totality of a person's learned, accumulated experience which is
socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social
learning.
A culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors,
beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without
thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and
imitation from one generation to the next.
Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a
group's skills, knowledge, attitudes, values, and motives. The
meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated
in a society through its institutions.
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for
behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the
distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments
in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional
ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on
the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other hand,
as conditioning influences upon further action. Culture is the sum of
total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally
considered to be the tradition of that people and are transmitted from
generation to generation.
I think that this combination covers
the main characteristics of the term culture as widely used today.
I am hoping to hear more from those on
our lists about whether they think, as I do, that we need an atomistic
huml:-prefixed description of the element culture that narrowly
defines it such that our secondary schemata for various cultural
entities/modules can be easily compiled according to an enumeration of
characteristics without the necessity for creating a new specific
definition for each culture, yet still maintaining the useability of
the wider, unprefixed term, culture in other contexts.
And, of course, I am waiting to hear
more from Len and Sylvia about how this fits into the semiotic
framework.
Ciao,
Rex
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-culture
From: James Landrum <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:42:40 -0500
Title: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-culture
What Rex proposes is good, useful, and
workable.. What follows are several related issues, e.g., whether we
should approach this as "element = culture (noun)" or
"element = cultural (adjective)" with element qualifiers
e.g., that stipulate grammatical (grammarical?) usage/application of
terms, and whether (or not) we should address the disicplinary
contexts that apply in usage and definition.
for example:
element = culture (noun)
qualifier = shared beliefs
qualifier = values
qualifier = customs
qualifier = behaviors
qualifier = artifacts
qualifier = material culture (see
below)
element = cultural (adjective)
qualifier = beliefs as in
cultural beliefs
qualifier = values as in cultural
values
qualifier = customs as in cultural
customs
qualifier = behaviors as in cultural
behaviors
qualifier = artifacts as in cultural
artifacts
qualifier = heritage as in cultural
heritage
element = society (noun)
element - societal (adjective)
element = association (noun)
element = community (noun)
element = group (noun)
and so forth...
This gets deeper (thicker or denser)
the further one explores the issues imbued in definitions of culture.
I
address the disciplinary venues
(contexts) in application of the terminology, and for now I would
limit these to
3 disciplinary contexts that impinge on
humanmarkup language. We have been addressing #1,
Anthropological context, thus far:
1.Anthropological context
element = culture (noun)
qualifier = shared beliefs
qualifier = values
qualifier = customs
qualifier = behaviors
qualifier = artifacts
qualifier - material culture Note also
that the term "material culture" refers to culture-specific
material culture
assemblages, e.g., Samoan Material
Culture, and in the archaeological literature this is also
presented as
"material culture remains" in
reference to artifacts)
element = cultural (adjective)
qualifier = beliefs as in
cultural beliefs
qualifier = values as in cultural
values
qualifier = customs as in cultural
customs
qualifier = behaviors as in cultural
behaviors
qualifier = artifacts as in cultural
artifacts
qualifier = heritage as in cultural
heritage
2. Sociological
element = culture (noun) (similar to
anthropological baove)
3. Biological
element = culture (noun) (much
different than Anthropological and Sociological above), as in use of
auger to cultivate a biological (e.g., bacteriological or
virulogical)) culture. now, regarding "artifact" and
"artifacts" definitions, disciplinary venue and context are
at issue, whether one is referring to what some museologists (museum
professionals), librarians, and archivists,and some (few)
archaeologists refer to as:
"a 3-dimensional (3-d)
physical object of human manufacture or modified by
humans." but "artifact" is more generally
defined by archaeologists as "an object of human manufacture or
an object modified by humans" note also the comment above,
repeated here: (Note 1: Note also that the term
"material culture" refers to culture-specific material
culture assemblages of artifacts, e.g., Samoan Material Culture, and
in the archaeological literature this is also presented as
"material culture remains" in reference to artifacts
.)
Note 2: In this context I apply
"object" rather than 3-d or 3 diomensional because we are
now in the digital age and, for example- in the case of our lab, we
create 3D (note the missing hyphen and capitalization of letter
"D" in "3D") digital models (surrogates) of actual
artifacts, and I would prefer that we do not place ourselves in a
semantic argument circumstance that will arise if we apply (what is my
mind view the incorrect application of the) terms "3-d" or
"3-D" term used by museologists, librarians, and archivists
[Note: I have had some minor discussions with folk at CIMI, NINCH,
SAA, and other organizations trying to resolve this particular issue;
it is as yet unresolved.) or what in the behaviorists' context is
(loosely) defined as
"a sign or symbol
(linguistic or physical), physical action (e.g., gesture), behavior
(e.g., avoidance ritual)" ( etc.- behaviorism is not my field, so
definition is "loosely" presented and so working definition
should come from that sector)"
--
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