Sylvia's Use Case Diagram of Semiosis, Interplay

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

>From: cognite@zianet.com
>To: rexb@starbourne.com
>Subject: failure notice (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:31:53 -0600
>X-Rcpt-To: <rexb@starbourne.com>
>X-DPOP: Version number supressed
>Status: U
>
>
>sent also to the admin address noted in the response
>----------Forwarded message ----------
>Return-Path: <>
>Delivered-To: cognite@sycorax.zianet.com
>Received: (qmail 79015 invoked by alias); 22 May 2003 04:20:02 -0000
>Delivered-To: alias-filterme-cognite@zianet.com
>Received: (qmail 79000 invoked by uid 0); 22 May 2003 04:20:01 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO mail.oasis-open.org) (209.202.168.102)
>by zianet.com with SMTP; 22 May 2003 04:20:01 -0000
>Received: (qmail 27447 invoked for bounce); 22 May 2003 04:07:20 -0000
>Date: 22 May 2003 04:07:20 -0000
>From: MAILER-DAEMON@mail.oasis-open.org
>To: cognite@zianet.com
>Subject: failure notice
>Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.oasis-open.org.
>I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
>This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
><huml@lists.oasis-open.org>:
>Sorry, only contributing members may post. If you are a contributing 
>member, please forward this message to 
>administration@lists.oasis-open.org to get your new address included 
>(#5.7.2)
>--- Below this line is a copy of the message.
>Return-Path: <cognite@zianet.com>
>Received: (qmail 27441 invoked by uid 60881); 22 May 2003 04:07:20 -0000
>Received: from cognite@zianet.com by hermes by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.15
>(spamassassin: 2.43.  Clear:SA:0(2.1/8.0):.
>Processed in 0.222119 secs); 22 May 2003 04:07:20 -0000
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.1 required=8.0
>Received: from unknown (HELO klaatu.zianet.com) (204.134.124.201)
>by mail.oasis-open.org with SMTP; 22 May 2003 04:07:20 -0000
>Received: (qmail 5454 invoked by alias); 22 May 2003 04:20:21 -0000
>Message-ID: <20030522042021.5453.qmail@klaatu.zianet.com>
>From: cognite@zianet.com
>To: huml@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Use Cases structure diagram (for instantiations)
>Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 22:20:21 -0600
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>herewith the outline of Use Cases structure as requested in today's fine
>phone meeting, for use in presentations and proposals. SC
>The diagram of interplay where individual semiotes are spokespeople
>for a group is semiosis as seen in the preliminary SEMIOSIS diagram
>complexified by showing that the individual is interacting with a member
>group while talking back and forth with another individual from [another]
>reference group.
>Note the *live feedback loops* in the resulting INTERPLAY diagram.
>(They are indicated with double-headed arrows.)
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------
>
>USE CASE DIAGRAM of SEMIOSIS:
>SEMIOTE_1
>[in context_1 (<=> meaning), sends intentional and unintentional signals]
>|
>| [signals transmitted] x MARKUP TO BRIDGE CONTEXTS
>v
>SEMIOTE_2
>[in context_2 (<--> Meaning), interprets apprehended (possibly modified)
>signals]
>o changes of state in agents who can generate and interpret meaning of
>signals
>_______________________________________
>
>USE CASE DIAGRAM of INTERPLAY: with Live Feedback Loops
>(pretty much transcribed from huml group phone discussion 21 May 2003)
>GROUP_A
>{GROUP DYNAMICS: activities, ongoing feedback during communication activity
>of member INDIVIDUAL_a}
>^
>|
>| [interaction_a_A_bilateral]
>v
>INDIVIDUAL_a
>^
>|
>| [interaction_a_b_bilateral, communication activity, bilateral, verbal and
>non-verbal]
>|
>v
>INDIVIDUAL_b
>^
>| [interaction_b_B_bilateral]
>|
>v
>GROUP_B
>{GROUP DYNAMICS: activities, ongoing feedback during communication activity
>of member INDIVIDUAL_b}
>Notes:
>o CONSONANCE: continuing membership requirement: cognitive consonance with
>[perceived] group custom [See definition above.] Cognitive dissonance may
>lead to fracture of relationship. Agreement and sharing make for group
>existence and stability.
>o FLUENCY: communication rates must needs be in some correspondence for
>influence, i.e., successful interaction of spokesman and group.
>o EMOTION: group may amplify individual member's emotional state and its
>results in the interactions.
>o AGENDAS: both individuals and groups may have particular agendas, which
>may or may not correspond.
>o ROLE: role, support and status of individuals within groups is dynamic.
>General description:
>Catastrophic dissonance, etc. may lead to communication breakdown.
>Constructive communication can occur similarly thru charismatic evocation of
>emotion and information matching and pass-thru.
>Example of catastrophe:
>offensive ignorance of expected turn-taking/tone-of-voice/term of
>address/recognition of need to consult with cohorts/...
>Example of successful interchanges:
>Case of autonomous understanding:
>prior experience with or listening to communications partner's request for
>turn/tone/title/pacing and pauses
>Catastrophe averted, with enhancement of pass-thru by huml markup:
>explicit indicators salted within discourse: applause expected, bow now,
>raised voice for status, significance of turning of back, title matching,
>reference to legendary personage, etc.
>
>================================================================
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>Courtesy of Cogonizor.com WebMail :)
>(2nd send)
>SC


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request