[humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-measurement-unit

Title: PBS-Doc-measurement-unit

This was a lively discussion which
necessitated changing the complexType name to maeasurement-unit, which
I have done, along with stipulating that we may import the namespaces
of measurement system standards. I also changed the
description/definition so that it states that measurement-unit is used
to establish the use of a recognized and cited measurement system for
an application using our Primary Base Schema.

Beyond that I note, but did nothing in the schema, that we need to
settle on a policy or schema element for assigning values to
subjective perceptions such as intensity of emotions, other than our
range datatype. Manos' idea of properties toolkit for these is
excellent, and I hope we can collectively remember to get back to that
idea.

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - measurement

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: ,


            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 07:06:37 -0700

      Ah, at last, an element that I believe
will be darn difficult to question.

      But I'm going to try. Actually I am
just going to add a bit that I

      think is necessary.

      measurement

      This is a Complex Type element without
the attribute abstract. It is

      described and defined as being used to
creat distance or length

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

      elements.

      I would add all the standard weights
and measures. I will check on

      the best references for that.

      My only question is whether there are
distinctly human values for

      which we need to have physical
measurements? I don't think so.

      However, do we need separate
measurements for olfactory and taste

      data? I suspect that we need to ask if
those should be in the primary

      or in the Human Physical
Characteristics Description Markup Language

      as adjunct values for sensory
phenomena? I suppose we might also want

      to clarify intensity values which we
will be using for haptics,

      emotion, kinesics, but I don't think
they apply to this element. I'm

      mostly thinking out loud so to speak
here since measurements apply to

      so many phenomena, many of which are
somewhat or wholly subjective

      and I certainly do not think we should
attempt to create measurements

      for such on our own.

      Ciao,

      Rex

      --

From the Desk of James E. Landrum III

      Database Manager

      Archaeology Technologies Laboratory
(ATL; http://atl.ndsu.edu)

      Digital Archive Network for
Anthropology (DANA; http://atl.ndsu.edu/archive)

      North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota 58105

      Ph: 701-231-7115 (my desk) and ATL
701-231-6434

      FAX: 701-231-1047

      email: 

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema -
measurement-part 2

            
From: James Landrum <>

            
To: Rex Brooks <>

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:14:00 -0500

      Point here is that "measurement"
is not the same as "measurement_unit"

      Measurement is the action of measuring
or the result of applying a unit

      of measure to an object or subject,
based on a measurement standard (or

      measurement_unit), expressed most often
numerically, i.e.,

      quantitatively, and more often these
are scientifically "objective"

      data.  Measurement can can also be
expressed qualitatively, e.g., high,

      medium, low, short, long, happy, sad,
depressed, manic, etc., and the

      qualitative measurement is often more
subjective, rather than objective.

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema -
measurement-part 2

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: James Landrum <>,Rex Brooks
<>

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:33:42 -0700

      I think we need to give some thought to
the best way to handle

      subjective measurements, since I
suspect that we will have to

      consider these to be somewhat
individual interpretations perhaps

      modified by cultural context.

      We will have both the kinesic
vocabularies (and how they can be

      modified by somewhat arbitrarily scaled
numeric values if included in

      the Primary Base Schema) and the
emotion intensities to consider

      along with these subjective,
qualitative estimations of some kind of

      value-equivalence for some elements.
Perhaps we can put this on the

      agenda for tomorrow's meeting. If I
hear no objections, I will

      include it for discussion.

      Ciao,

      Rex

Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema -
measurement-part 2

            
From: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)"
<>

            
To: James Landrum <>

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:31:41 +0300

      Hi James,

      Absolutelly. We need a hierarchy
composed of abstract properties to be

      used as a toolkit for totally
subjective measurments; such an approach

      is the only way to provide reusable
base for vertical applications (==

      subjective).

      I would be interested to hear opinions
on whether doing such a hierarchy

      should climb to the point where
properties are aware of types such as

      primitives (as known from programming
languages) or even further.

      Personally, I would favour
implementation-independent ranges (types) for

      these properties to be aware of. Sets
for example (such RGB color

      values). Such design techniques can
proove usefull to fallback

      mechanisms without having to deal
with

      platform/implementation/application
specific requierments.

      If one needs XSD like types, he/she can
always import them and extend

      them; we don't have to reinvent the
wheel. Let's try to inovate a little...

      Regards,

      Manos

Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema -
measurement-part 2

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)"
<>,James Landrum

            
<>

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:00:04 -0700

      I think this is a good idea. I would
like to hear more about how to

      adopt it. For one thing, we need a way
to clearly describe the

      hierarchy of these abstract values.
Would an rdf schema be better, to

      which we could refer or use in
preference to the xsd elements for

      this aspect of asserting values for
subjective measurements? This is

      a question not a suggestion? However, I
will look for you on YahooIM

      tomorrow morning my time, before the
meeting if you have any further

      ideas then that you don't get around to
today.

      Thanks,

      Rex

Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema -
measurement-part 2

            
From: James Landrum <>

            
To: "Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)"
<>

            
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:15:01 -0500

      Yes on this post and also in response
to other post about adding

      measurement to agenda- good idea, along
with all the rest- plus, weren't

      you planning on adding bibliography
item to the agenda?

      One thing to consider is the arbitrary
and often researcher specific

      tendencies that influence the scope and
scale of measurement and choice

      of measurement_units, and note also
that it is not uncommon for social

      scientists to codify the subjective
content and "scientificize" their

      data, e.g., good = 1, bad = 0, etc.,
but I don't think that we should

      worry about that here, just mentioning
it for future consideration.

      Measurements have context specific
properties and the  numeric (e.g.,

      1-n) values and the Measurement_Units
(e.g., centimeters,

      millimeters,milligrams, or whatever)
applied are much more easily

     
compartmentalized than are the other sort. Perhaps best to start

      discussion with focus on the numeric
and,  measurement_unit standards

      for weights and measures. Then we can
do an overview on the more

      subjective qualitative measurement
issues.  These are, as always, just

      suggestions.

Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema -
measurement-part 2

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: James Landrum <>,"Emmanuil
Batsis (Manos)"

            
<>

            
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:16:16 -0700

      My apologies for not answering this
yesterday.

      Yes, the bibliography issue is one that
is part of the agenda for

      today's meeting. OASIS has been issuing
a set of updated requirements

      which I have been reviewing to see if
there are particular

      requirements that we need to be
informed about. Unfortunately the

      details of the approval process changes
have not yet been provided on

      the OASIS website, so I have been
unable to come to a satisfactory

      conclusion about that and how or if it
affects our work and the work

      of the Web Services for Interactive
Applications TC, to which I also

      belong and for which I do the
webmastering, too. I don't think there

      is anything that we need to be aware of
today. In any event, the

      issue of the Bibliographical and
cross-standards references I would

      like to codify are not yet clear in
terms of what is approvable. We

      will discuss it.

      Ciao,

      Rex

Title: Fwd: Re: Base Schema - measurement and self-comment

      Hi Folks,

      Those who
attended today's meeting might remember that I said I occasionally
receive comments sent directly to me personally and that I ask
permission before forwarding them, and I suggest doing so if you
receive a personal reply to one of your posts and you think it is
worth forwarding to our lists. I am forwarding this one because I
received permission, and I also think that the point is
pertinent.

      Measurement
systems can be used in many ways, and comparisons between items that
are not related in a first order way, such as the costs/month of two
telephone vendors are related in a first order sort of comparison, are
often useful. The ability to be clear when such comparisons are made
is one of the concerns we will certainly bear in mind in our language,
so that we can communicate accurately and with impactfulness when
needed.

      Ciao,

      Rex

                  Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002
10:20:19 -0700

                  To: "CPPE/BOACOM
Corp." <>

                  From: Rex Brooks
<>

                  Subject: Re: Base Schema
- measurement and self-comment

                  Cc:

                  Bcc:

                  X-Attachments:

                  Hi Jerome,

                  Please forgive my
informality if it is inappropriate. This is a very pertinent question
so I would like  to have your permission to post it to the TC
mailing list.

                  The question is very
focused on the phrase, distinctive human values, and I think it
deserves to be addressed both to you personally and to the list, so I
will wait on posting a copy of this letter to the list until I have
your permission.

                  Basically, the kind of
value to which I was referring in relation to measurement as an
element of our Primary Base Schema is one of quantity or amount. That
is a numerical value that can be assigned to a physical object. So in
that sense, when I said that I did not think there was a need for a
physical measurement of a distinctly human value, what I meant was
that I did not think  there was a need for a new physical
measurement for existing distinctly human values, meaning that we
already have sufficient measurements available to use for such things
body weight, height, eye color, distance between locations, cost of
food in rural Uganda or upstate New York,  etc.

                  However, you bring up a
very important point in terms of comparing different kinds of
values

which can be compared on a numerical basis
even if they are not alike in terms of what is  measured. By
associating two essentially different kinds of things that are
seemingly unrelated in terms of cost per consideration such as the
cost of stealth bomber and therefore the relative cost of the pilot's
safety and security and the safety and security of the entire
population of Haiti, you make it possible to see the relative worth of
the items in a different light than that which is used  to
examine these items during a cost evaluation by a body which is
considering spending money for those items, such as the U.S.
Congress.

                  In this case I would say
that the comparison is valuable to make, but I don't think that there
are particular elements in the comparison as stated which one needs
HumanML to clarify. However, there is a point in the comparison where
HumanML could be valuable, and that would be in

pointing out how needs/values differ by
culture in allocating resources and in experiencing the

realities of poverty and lack of
opportunity. If such a comparison is presented to show
the

discrepancies responsible for engendering
long-term generational anger and antipathy that resultin measureable
damage to humans on all sides of a given situation, THEN we may
improve

understanding and communication. The issue
then becomes one of finding the most effective way to present
information to gain understanding through carefully directed
communications.

                  So, if I could have your
permission to post this message to our public-comment list, I
would

                  appreciate it. It makes
an important point that we should consider as we shape the Human

                  Markup Language.

                  Thanks,

                  Rex Brooks

                               Dear Mr.
Brooks

                               My only
question

                                is
whether

                                there
are distinctly human values

                               for which we
need to

                               have physical
measurements?

                               I don't think
so.(Rex Brooks)

                               In my very
humble opinion, I would think that each of these statements would

                               merit
consideration for action.

                               If there are
no physical measurements for distinctive human values, then

                               there are
very likely no other forms of measurement either, which is absurd

                               to say the
least. (Jerome Michaud)

                               I have been
following OASIS XML threads and your leadership in particular. I

                               am most
fascinated but how much has to be done so quickly from the

                               commercial
standpoint (dot org @ dot com or vice versa)and yet seems to

                               evolve so
slowly from the from the dot edu perspective. i.e a recent IFIP

                               World
Computer Congress in Montreal pointed this out to me.

                               One group
presenter from Holland  at the WCC IFIP refered to Maslow's

                               hierarchy of
needs/values. For example, the safety and security needs of one

                               pilot in one
Stealth airplane represents in economic terms, let's say the

                               safety and
security needs of  the entire population of Haiti for ten
years.

                               How would the
internet societies weight the relative values of  the Stealth

                               pilot's life
versus those of the population of Haiti?

                               Distinctive
human values and not so distinctive internet measurement, I

                               feel.

                               Thanks again
for accelrating the editor's learning curves. Jerome Michaud

                               Children's
Charter Foundation CCF

                               Fondation
Charte des enfants FCE

                               31,rue
Hadley, Hull (Gatineau-Outaouais-QC.CA) J8Y 3K6

                               Tel
819-771-2040, Fax 819-776-0904

                              
www.parlom.ca