humanmarkup message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: [humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-human and humlNameElements
- 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 12:07:26 -0700
Title: PBS-Doc-human and
humlNameElements
Hi Everyone,
This is what we had to say about the base unit. All I did was to
take out the samples of extension elements that can be added from
other schemata.. I left <xs:extension
base="humlNameElements"> The rest of our discussions did
not require any further changes that I could determine.
I suspect that, given the correspondence I have had the last few
days, importing namespaces makes more sense than adding individual
elements and we still do not have to enumerate those elements while
making them available for use with our schema. There will certainly be
reasons for adding individual elements and enumerations that might be
duplicates in the Secondary in order to make them more easily
understood as available in the Secondary.
Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema-human
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org,
humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 06:58:39 -0700
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
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human
From: "James.Landrum"
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>
To: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:56:52 -0500
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.
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human
From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: "James.Landrum" <James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex
Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:28:29 -0700
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
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "'James.Landrum'"
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex Brooks
<rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:20:40 -0500
It is a communicating entity with six
basic senses.
Define it for the application problem
to be solved.
In this initiative, it is human
communications. The
other categories are modifiers of the
means and ways
of mediation.
Somwhere back in the early archives is
a thread on
"what it means to be
human".
len
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<clbullar@ingr.com>
To: "'James.Landrum'"
<James.Landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu>,Rex Brooks
<rexb@starbourne.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:04:19 -0500
BTW: I know that there are dogs
that can
meet that definition. For
our work, that
doesn't matter. One
discovers that enumerated
definitions are weak anyway because one
can
always find an exception that on
surface
examination, possesses most of the
values,
but fails on some major of minor
point.
That definition was orignally proposed
because
it matches the problem definition of
the initiative.
To be more precise, about all we could
say is
that to be human, one has human
parents. And
then the cloning guys will out us.
So we move
to, to be human is to have human
genes. And then
the cloning guys will splice in pig
genes and we
will be outed again. I don't
think a set theory
or mathematically precise definition
will be
prescriptive. We end up
back to an application
or problem specific definition.
len
--
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