|Rex Brooks||Jul 29, 2002 8:03 am|
|Bullard, Claude L (Len)||Jul 29, 2002 12:51 pm|
|Rex Brooks||Jul 29, 2002 1:37 pm|
|Bullard, Claude L (Len)||Jul 30, 2002 7:56 am|
|Rex Brooks||Jul 30, 2002 9:00 am|
|Bullard, Claude L (Len)||Jul 30, 2002 9:03 am|
|Rex Brooks||Jul 30, 2002 9:23 am|
|Rex Brooks||Aug 1, 2002 9:02 am|
|Rex Brooks||Aug 2, 2002 6:33 am|
|Rex Brooks||Aug 2, 2002 9:05 am|
|Subject:||RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-community|
|From:||Rex Brooks (re...@starbourne.com)|
|Date:||Aug 1, 2002 9:02:30 am|
I am replying to this message again because I want to keep the thread intact, not because I have changed my mind. In fact what I want to do is to carry this a bit farther because I have had further thoughts.
In suggesting that we start with a pared down definition of either the element community or else a new base element which I would coin as humanGroup and define as simply two or more humans (small h since these named humans could be digital representations of agents or biological individuals) either gathered together in a digital environment capable of representing multiple users or representing themselves as belonging to an association of humans with some given name. Thus the higher level abstractions-symbol systems--would be either named communities or time/date stamped interactions existing for as long as they exist in a server and on clients, capable of being saved/logged by any entities involved.
The reason for having an atomistic definition is to keep our semiotic representation as clean and crisp as possible. We may end up, after the semiotic experiment with a two part definition of most if not all of our Primary Base Schema Elements, with a semiotic definition first, and an XML HumanML definition second.
At 9:55 AM -0500 7/30/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
1. I didn't mean to use consent as an attribute candidate. I was just offering that as one exception to community by consensus. In other words, yes, as you say, not abstract enough. Group simply means that a set of humans has been grouped. It leaves the reason vague, and acts almost like the Group in VRML (grouped for whatever reason; the label is an identifier, not a classifier).
2. Perception. That is vague because it is overloaded, for one. I prefer not to tackle it now. At the moment, I am interested in considering how a human in a group or not in a group can be said to have competence over multiple sign systems. In other words, belonging to a culture may say of a stereotype, yes this stereotype can handle this sign system, but it can't be said of an individual human unless they observably demonstrate competence. That is the HR problem in a nutshell. Once we have a sign system, then testing is the way to deal with perceptions.
We will only ever be able to deal with models of humans, and models of systems modeled humans work with.
-----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks [mailto:re...@starbourne.com]
Actually, I'm thinking in sets, both overlapping and enveloping, that is subsets, supersets, and intersecting sets. I don't have a structure yet. I'm hoping that as we explore this element, some structure or structures will emerge. I also think that what is occurring to me is the beginning of an approach to the concept of perception. It has always been the big missing piece for me. If you look back at the class structure I did, for example. I included as much of the established concepts, such as personality type models, as I thought seemed safe, but I did not include cognition or perception models. I may be getting closer to a comfort zone for that, but I'm not there yet.
I agree that the familial relationship is less consenting while children remain in their minority, though it would apply after that, and even before, psychologically if not legally. I'm not sure about consent as an attribute at the base level. I'd like to hear from the others. What I am thinking is: group - any collection of one or more humans with or without consent, and group is the atomic level of community. How it orders itself in ascending levels of abstraction is not clear to me yet, but this seems necessary to me as the basis for building up a picture of where group/community belief structures define however much of any given individual member's perceptions or predisposition toward taking the group/community belief structure as their own perceptions.