[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [huml] Huml vs. HumanML
FWIW: I haven't reviewed this paper, but a point to make about applicability: o The focus of the HumanML primary schema design was to isolate and categorize aspects of human communication, as process and as state of the communicators (internally and externally) and the environment in which they communicate. For example, a semiote has internal and external aspects that influence the semiotes ability to communication intensionally, and it operates within a semiotic environment that also has influence over different semiotes attempting to communicate. At one point, I posted a diagram that lays out these relationships. This looks like high level stuff, but it expresses the important aspect of communicating entities within a dynamic environment which directs entities and which entities direct. This is the essence of feedback-mediated evolution. This process of evolution is key to the improvement of the process of communication and self-directed adaptation. Modification of self and environment through exchange of signs is THE key idea. HumanML is a tool for improving that process, not a tool for external control. o The schema categories are relatively independent of each other. This enables a derivative schema to derive element types from only the categories needed by that schemea and to create relationships that express the particular theory of human communication being schematized. The HumanML project has a very keen interest in testing and improving the primary categories. This can enable HumanML language families to be very broad and even to conflict among themselves as to the implications of the theories so expressed. However, given the focus on observable aspects of communication, it is expected that results of observations can be fed back to the schema designers to improve their results and over time, some theories will converge. Psychological theories are a good example where in our research, we found that the theories diverged signficantly. In that sense, the creation of a HumanML derived schema is the codification of a theory. There is an old saying in the markup community: a DTD is a theory about a document. A HumanML schema is a theory about human communication. len From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@interposting.com] Hi Guys, Just a few comments about the paper--although I'm not looking at the final version on FTP (Sylvia's folder?). 1) HumanML: formal name of language. huml (lowercase): namespace prefix and name of discussion list Huml (uppercase): root element of Primary Base Schema Rex and I chatted about this Sunday, and we realized that we haven't been making clear this distinction in the last several months--which we should have. I guess it's just tunnel vision on our parts. If you guys don't get time to do it, that's absolutely fine, but a suggestion is to change the references from huml/HuML to HumanML, just so we are as internally consistent as possible. 2) Another thing Sylvia I believe--Psychology is certainly a disciple for applicability for HumanML--you had exclamation points around it with my name I believe? ;) 3) A final issue is the formatting for some of the text is appearing off the page--it may be just my version of Open Office or something. The paper/presentation should be really nice! Definitely looking forward to seeing the final version. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Powered by ezmlm-idx