[humanmarkup] PBS-Doc-symbol

Title: PBS-Doc-symbol

Very little changed here except changing
humlIdentifierAtts to humlCommAtts and shortened the definition. If we
need to we can revisit the concept in the public review, but I think
it is pretty sound.

No double meaning meant.

Subject: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema
- signal

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: ,


            
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:09:34 -0700

      Hi Everyone,

      We're baaack!

      This element is a ComplexType,
abstract, does not reference other

      elements. I'm not sure, as I am not
sure with many other elements,

      whether we want to stipulate that it is
not used by other elements,

      although for these three semiotics
elements, we may want to give it

      more thought.

      It is described/defined as: Human
Signal An interruption in a field

      of constant energy transfer. An example
is the the dots and dashes

      that open and close the electromagnetic
field of a telegraph circuit.

      The basic function of such signals is
to provide the change of a

      single environmental factor to attract
attention and to transfer

      meaning.

      I will defer to the final determination
of the group, but I think we

      may want to refine this a bit. Oddly
enough, I think that could

      result is a shorter description to
something like: a perceptible

      change in an environmental factor that
can be used to transfer

      meaning.

      In any event, it is also a member of
the group of elements that

      shares the attribute group:
humlIdentifierAtts.

      My trepidation with the concept of use
by other elements is that of

      finding a way to specify that while
atomistic in the Primary Base

      Schema, all elements in this schema are
meant to be used by child

      elements in the succeeding schemata. We
might want to say that the

      elements in this schema are intended to
be used to derive the

      elements of the Secondary Base Schema,
which in turn are meant to be

      referenced by the Application
Area-Specific Schemata member elements.

      Ciao,

      Rex

      --

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

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

            
To: 'Rex Brooks' <>,


            
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:25:00 -0500

      I'll go with the simpler
explanation. 

      Some further questions.  Another
example

      often given is a tapping, eg, someone
tapping

      a pencil on a desk.  Now, does
this have to

      be purposeful to be a signal? 
IOW, does bored

      reflexive tapping make it as a signal,
or does

      it have to be purposeful.  Another
example

      is "PSSST!"  This
doesn't qualify as an energy

      disruption.  It is the purposeful
pursing of

      the lips and blowing air to get
someone's attention.

      So to be a signal, does the sign have
to be:

      1.  Purposeful

      2.  Directed toward a
receiver(s)

      len

Subject: Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema - signal

            
From: James Landrum <>

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

            
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:11:57 -0500

      Hmmmm,  How deep should we delve
here?

      A signal is an action or event, a
stimulus that precipitates one or more

      reactions, inclusive of observance
without outwardly visible response.

      E.G., (1) the events of 9/11 signaled a
major change in US security

      policy. (2) Igor observed the monster
crush Dr. Frankenstein's head to a

      glutinous, mottle of red-gray pulp, as
though it were an overripe melon.

       The action an inescapable product
of the monster's rage, the message

      (signal) clear enough for even the
simplest of minds to comprehend, the

      monster had
had enough of the mad doctor's genius. Despite the

      terrifying circumstance, Igor stood
there immobile, in an intractable

      stupor, doing nothing but knowing all
the while, even as the monster

      continued bashing the unfortunate
doctor into an unrecognizable mash of

      blood, flesh, and bones, that he was
next in line. Deep within Igor's

      mind a synapse flickered, sending a
message (signal) to his conscience

      that despite the brutality the monster
was capable of and would soon

      direct upon him, that in no small way
it was righteous anger on the

      monster's part, for Igor had helped
Frankenstein create this monster,

      and the monster , now self-aware, would
not allow such insanity to be

      perpertrated
further upon himself or others, and his impending doom, was

      therefore, both just and sorely
deserved.

      Perhaps a bit long-winded (and perhaps
too graphically violent as well)

      bvut the piont of the above points (1
and 2) are that signals are not

      mere
actions, they are events of themselves and can be both objectively

      as well as subjectively observed and
interpreted, but perhaps just as

      important, a signal is, in the human
context at least, more often an

      intentional action to of a transmitter
to communicate, to transmit

      information in a salient (meaningful)
way, so as to evoke one or more

      anticipated reactions from the
receiver.  This, of course, is inclusive

      of that often-observed
miscommunitation, the :missed signal.

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

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

            
To: 'James Landrum' <>

            
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 11:16:49 -0500

      The term "signal" in this
application is constrained

      quite deliberately to a limited
definition.  We got

      it from the literature, not the natural
language.

      Delving deeply is not warranted.

      len

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

            
From: Rex Brooks <>

            
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<>,'James Landrum'

            
<>

            
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 12:58:34 -0700

      While I understand Len's reply,
especially since I am about as deeply

      immersed in the semiotic literature and
the history of the semiotic

      schools of thought as it is possible to
be right now, I also

      understand the points James was making.
So what I want to say about

      this is that the rest of the world
still is not semiotically

      literate, and the kind of points James
brings up are the kinds of

      responses we are likely to receive from
the most educated and

      literate of audience.

      This is what I meant when I mentioned
that we need to be able sell

      HumanMarkup as well as invent it. Now,
what I would hope to see is

      for both of you to approach this
exchange from the other's viewpoint

      if that is possible and is not too much
to ask, which I would

      understand as well.

      This would be especially helpful to me,
since I am working on

      explaining this entire set of elements
(the semiotic ones). I think

      we would be well advised to deal with
this aspect of our work now,

      while the trail of possible
misunderstandings is fresh.

      Ciao,

      Rex