[humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-locator

Title: PBS-Doc-locator

We had rather a lot to say about locator,
compared to some others one might think more critical, but hey, that's
what discussion is for, right?

In looking at how we resolved this and the
issue of a geo-temporal  complexType or attrbute, and it seems to
me that this should be decided in the pubic comment period. I think
that having a geolocator and humlTemporalAtts can handle the job, so I
left well enough alone for now, but I could be fairly easily persuaded
that we need a different complexType or attribute.

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema
- locator

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: ,


            
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 06:58:29 -0700

      Hi Everyone,

      Onward...

      locator

      The element is Complex Type, derived by
restrictin from xsd.string is

      not classified as abstract.

      It does not reference other elements.
It is not used by other elements

      It is described/defined as a simple set
of names of locations ON an object.

      I don't have a lot to say about this
one except that I'm not sure why

      we need it. I don't object to it, and
I'm not suggesting we delete

      it, I just don't know what the special
use is that we have for it

      that raises it to the level of
necessity for inclusion in the base

      schema. I understand body location on a
human object, but I'm not

      quite sure about locatin on an object
per se. I suspect that like a

      few other things that don't seem
obvious to me, as soon as someone

      shows me an example of how it would be
used, I will do a Homer

      Simpson, apply palm to forehead and
utter a plaintive, "Doh!"

      Anyway, I'm not gonna have a cow about
it.

      Ciao,

      Rex

      --

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - locator

            
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<>

            
To: 'Rex Brooks'

            
<>,"''"<>

            
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 09:09:12 -0500

      Without locators, you have not way to
provide a spatial

      context for other objects.  It is
there as a placeholder

      to note that fact.   When you
break down the parts of

      any assembly, you generally denote
these in terms of

      say "upper",
"lower", "upper right" etc.  This is a

      code list for simple descriptions of
locations relative

      to each other.

      len

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - locator

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <>,'Rex
Brooks'

            
<>,"''"<>

            
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:14:37 -0700

      I don't have a problem with locators,
and as I said, I am not

      suggesting deleting it. I just wanted
to know what there is about it

      that is special to HumanML as opposed
to the rest of the world or xml

      in general. I see your points, and I
suspect that as we include it,

      it will eventually be included in some
overall schema, perhaps the

      semiotics schema if such a thing comes
about, or an ontological

      schema of basic concepts or constructs
for an epistemological

      framework that clarifies how we
describe general consensus reality.

      Also, it occurs to me that we may need
to narrow object down for this

      case so that it is clearly a sign for a
physical object, not a

      computer network conceptual object.

      Ciao,

      Rex

      Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema - locator

            
From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga <>

            
To: ,
,

            
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:05:02 -0400

      The particular code list below, to me,
seems like 'proxemics'.

      The distinction, as I currently see it,
is that 'locator' would be

      simply an absolute reference for
objects, while 'proxemics' would be a

      relative reference, relative of course
to other semiotes, or possibly

      physical objects.  Does that sound
right?

      Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - locator

            
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<>

            
To: 'Rex Brooks'

            
<>,"''"<>

            
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:01:41 -0500

      Here is an example of a data dictionary
that has a

      geolocator system.

     
http://www.chin.gc.ca/Artefacts/RULA/e_sample.html

      Consider that you might get to such a
site and then

      have to identify the locations of
artifacts according

      to a local coordinate grid whose root
is a geolocator

      but the rest of the grid is some set of
xy or other

      location names.  For example, when
describing the

      positions of artifacts, geological
strata are used

      to date the artifact (the lower the
layer, the

      older the artifact).  This works
ok until one begins

      to dig in caves where higher and lower
quit having

      the same correlation.

      We see in this sort of thing in

      public safety when one describes a road
intersection,

      or some location relative to a named
location.

      If we are strictly sticking to our
charter, a locator

      has to have an effect on human
communication for it

      to be in our scope.  I can make up
some cases for that,

      but not today.

      len

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - locator

            
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<>

            
To: 'Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga'

            
<>,, 

            
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:09:35 -0500

      Yes.  A locator is just a
placeholder for a set of names

      of relative locations for objects based
on natural language

      descriptions.  Proxemics takes on
social distances among

      the semiotes (eg, should also take up
the rules for social

      intercourse and how they affect
distance).  In a proxemic

      definition, we should be able to
discern given a cultural

      orientation and personal history if the
distance a speaker

      has to another speaker indicates
potential discomfort, dominance,

      intimacy, etc.

      Locators aren't that interesting an
element type.   They could

      be dumped without much loss.

      len

Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - locator

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<>,'Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga'

            
<>,, 

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 06:50:27 -0700

      Oh, I don't think we should drop
locator. Now that I understand it

      better, I think it is absolutely
necessary that we have a low level,

      primary element which is ours entirely
but which interoperates to

      extend the standards in place for us. I
think that the example of an

      artifact, especially an artifact that
is also a cultural symbol with

      important associations for an
individual, such as an amulet, a cross,

      a flag, etc needs to capable of
explicit treatment such as how it is

      handled, where it is touched and when,
etc.

      I sometimes ask questions that have
apparently obvious answers but

      which I think need explicit
explanations, but I also sometimes just

      ask questions because I'm just having a
dense moment but which serve

      the same purpose. Not even I know the
difference all the time. This

      was a case of one of those dense
moments and I really needed to have

      the use made clear for me.

      I agree that there are aspects of
locator which will be influenced by

      proxemics and vice versa, but they are
distinct functions and

      relationships should not be muddied by
conflating the two elements.

      As Len points out, and we will have
this discussion more fully soon

      since proxemic is coming up shortly.
Proxemics carry personal

      information beyond immediate physical
relationships to objects and

      persons.

      I also want to ask if we should add a
third locator to our current

      count of two, to include Sylvia's
suggestion of a geo-temporal

      locator to geolocator and locator, or
do we think that combining the

      geolocator element and the chronemic
element together to describe an

      object's location physically and
temporally is sufficient?

      Ciao,

      Rex

      Subject: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base
Schema - locator

            
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<>

            
To: 'Rex Brooks' <>,'Ranjeeth Kumar
Thunga'

            
<>,, 

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:06:13 -0500

      I vote for a combination of chronemic
and a locator.

      That will map nicely to the way most
software represents

      time and space data types.  The
markup doesn't really

      care but the implementation code
will.

      len