Thanks Ranjeeth,

This clears my decks for everything I mentioned on my to do list,
which I will start on immediately.

Ciao,
Rex

At 10:42 PM +0000 11/9/01, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:
>
>I want to announce today HumanMarkup.org, Inc, a non-profit
>domestic corporation established to help support the activities of
>the OASIS HumanMarkup TC in ways the TC is not equipped to support. 
>This includes issues pertaining to funding and application
>development.  This organization has existed for several months, and
>under its banner we have conducted Phase 0 technical discussion. 
>However, it is now being revamped to meet the additional needs of the
>HumanMarkup endeavor.
>
>
>Mission Statement
>-----------------
>HumanMarkup.org is a non-profit company supporting the development
>efforts of the separate OASIS HumanMarkup Technical Committee.  The
>ultimate aim is to develop Internet tools and repository systems
>which will enhance the fidelity of human communications.
>
>
>Purpose
>--------
>1) financially support OASIS HumanMarkup TC meetings and
>processes
>2) encourage members to take part in HumanMarkup
>specification design process
>3) promote acceptance and use of HumanMarkup specifications
>through direct contact, seminars, presentations, conferences,
>posters, and other means
>4) facilitate the development of applications using HumanML
>5) sponsor the humanmarkup.repository
>6) develop applications and systems which enhance
>the fidelity of human communication and representation.
>7) provide direct application services to agencies in projects which
>incorporate HumanMarkup implementations
>
>Contributors
>------
>This organization contains Rex Brooks, Joseph W. Norris, and myself
>as its directors, and I am the chair.  Additionally Kurt Cagle is
>volunteering his time and effort right now towards promulgating this
>effort as well.  Contributers are encouraged to join.
>
>so far...
>--------
>Over the last three months, we have established the core set of
>business procedures and documents for the company.  Interested
>parties are invited to participate in this organization as well by
>contacting any of us directly.  For the last few weeks, we were
>negotiating a possible relationship with OASIS in which we would be
>able to partner with them more directly in this effort.  Due to the
>fact that our endeavor was still nascent, we were to hold off on that
>for now.  Thus, at this time, HumanMarkup.org, Inc is completely
>separate from the OASIS HumanMarkup TC.
>
>We are also working with various US government agencies to establish
>an official relationship with many of the activities being done,
>especially focusing on events related to recent events.  Ideally, we
>will be able to help the government develop several real-world
>applications using HumanMarkup.
>
>Discussion Group
>-----------------
>If you receive this announcement, you are already subscribed to the
>humanmarkup yahoogroups discussion board.  The disussion group URL is
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup.  When we determine a
>public discussion agenda, we will open up the board for public
>contributions once again.
>
>(as a reminder,the current HumanMarkup OASIS TC discussion is held at
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup)
>
>Thanks very much.  Please contact any of us for further information. 
>
>----------
>Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
>HumanMarkup.org, Inc.
>rkthunga@...
>(646) 456-9076
>
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to:
>humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

I want to announce today HumanMarkup.org, Inc, a non-profit
domestic corporation established to help support the activities of
the OASIS HumanMarkup TC in ways the TC is not equipped to support.
This includes issues pertaining to funding and application
development.  This organization has existed for several months, and
under its banner we have conducted Phase 0 technical discussion.
However, it is now being revamped to meet the additional needs of the
HumanMarkup endeavor.


Mission Statement
-----------------
HumanMarkup.org is a non-profit company supporting the development
efforts of the separate OASIS HumanMarkup Technical Committee.  The
ultimate aim is to develop Internet tools and repository systems
which will enhance the fidelity of human communications.


Purpose
--------
1) financially support OASIS HumanMarkup TC meetings and
processes
2) encourage members to take part in HumanMarkup
specification design process
3) promote acceptance and use of HumanMarkup specifications
through direct contact, seminars, presentations, conferences,
posters, and other means
4) facilitate the development of applications using HumanML
5) sponsor the humanmarkup.repository
6) develop applications and systems which enhance
the fidelity of human communication and representation.
7) provide direct application services to agencies in projects which
incorporate HumanMarkup implementations

Contributors
------
This organization contains Rex Brooks, Joseph W. Norris, and myself
as its directors, and I am the chair.  Additionally Kurt Cagle is
volunteering his time and effort right now towards promulgating this
effort as well.  Contributers are encouraged to join.

so far...
--------
Over the last three months, we have established the core set of
business procedures and documents for the company.  Interested
parties are invited to participate in this organization as well by
contacting any of us directly.  For the last few weeks, we were
negotiating a possible relationship with OASIS in which we would be
able to partner with them more directly in this effort.  Due to the
fact that our endeavor was still nascent, we were to hold off on that
for now.  Thus, at this time, HumanMarkup.org, Inc is completely
separate from the OASIS HumanMarkup TC.

We are also working with various US government agencies to establish
an official relationship with many of the activities being done,
especially focusing on events related to recent events.  Ideally, we
will be able to help the government develop several real-world
applications using HumanMarkup.

Discussion Group
-----------------
If you receive this announcement, you are already subscribed to the
humanmarkup yahoogroups discussion board.  The disussion group URL is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup.  When we determine a
public discussion agenda, we will open up the board for public
contributions once again.

(as a reminder,the current HumanMarkup OASIS TC discussion is held at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup)

Thanks very much.  Please contact any of us for further information.

----------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
HumanMarkup.org, Inc.
rkthunga@...
(646) 456-9076

Discussion will now happen exclusively at OASIS.
The YahooGroups list is now disabled for public posts.

Everyone is invited to join the public discussion forum, as well as
the official TC at OASIS.  Please visit the site http://www.oasis-
open.org/committees/humanmarkup to sign up.

People are still invited to join the YahooGroups groupsite.  However,
the purpose of this Yahoogroups list is for moderators to send out
announcements that relate to any "non-OASIS" HumanMarkup.org issues.

See everyone at OASIS.

--------
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
rkthunga@...
(646) 456-9076

Hi Sudhakar,

That would be me, but I'm not home and I can't respond more fully.
It's just an accident that I stumbled on this post cuz I was looking
for something to show someone on Yahoo. We are conducting official
business now on the oasis list, the public comments list
humanmarkup-comment@....

We have a web page on the OASIS site. It details how to subscribe to
the list. I got involved with HumanMarkup initially to drive
VRML/Wed3D-X3D -H-Anim avatars. I am currently building a knowledge
base in medical supplies and I have already done some work in medical
and sports/exercise illustration in 3D, and I am also involved with
the H-Anim working group.

I will get back to you later this evening.

Ciao,
Rex

>Hi,
>Is anybody interested in physical description/characterstics of human beings?
>Let me know!
>
>Thx-
>Sudhakar Gorti
>Architect
>Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>Tel:917-320-9692
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to:
>humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

How soon can we phase the yahoo list out? This bouncing around and
keepng track, or trying to remember to keep track when all I want to
do is organize my thoughts for a reply is driving me crazy!

It also tells me I'm doing one or two dozen things too many! sheesh!
Such are the benefits of getting home a bit early. I already sent one
reply to the wrong list, but at least I caught this one.

Okay, back on track:

At 5:45 PM +0000 8/27/01, Michael Lacy wrote:
>This got me thinking about some of the limitations of HumanML and I
>thought I'd share with you all:
>
>1.) HumanML will be nothing more than another "language" for humans
>to use in order to communicate with each other. Some people
>communicate in English, others through music...the point is that
>groups of people communicate with one another through a common
>understanding of a universally accepted language within the group of
>people the person chooses to communicate with.

Uh, did anyone suggest it was meant to be more?

>2.) Using this new language, people will still be able to express
>irony, simile, and metaphor in their interactions with others, the
>true meaning of their statements manifesting themselves indirectly
>into a human understandable format, obscuring the truth of their
>feelings behind a safe allusion to a story outside of themselves.

Yup. It won't change that.

>3.) The more universal the language, the more powerful it will be. On
>one level, HumanML is just another communication medium for people to
>learn to express themselves through.  On another level, it attempts
>to capture the true feelings of a person and express them with the
>subtlety and directness that face-to-face interaction brings. Think
>about having a conversation with someone else.  There are so many
>perceptual clues as to how that person feels, a rolling of the eyes,
>a crossing of the arms across the chest, a heavy sigh. The big
>challenges I see are:

HumanML is not a medium. The Internet is a medium. TV and radio and
newspapers are media. HumanML is a markup language. Don't conflate
it.  It does  not attempt anything. People do that stuff.

>(a) how to come up with a set of semantics and syntax to capture
>these non-verbal gestures in their full detail without trying to
>elaborate every possible variation of every possible feeling; and

These are objectives for applications not languages.

>(b) how to get people to feel safety in expressing their true
>emotions and feelings to other human beings, something we have been
>notoriously bad at for several thousand years.

This is a very instructive post. It allows a lot of clarification for
newcomers. HumanML can't get people to feel safer in expressing their
vulnerabilities, it can allow them to do that by intrinsically giving
tacit permission--saying, in essence, HERE'S A LANGUAGE. YOU CAN
EXPRESS FEELINGS IN THIS LANGUAGE (among other things), and the
unspoken inference is that it's okay to do that. Or, to be more
accurate, it allows application builders to do that.

>I think the challenge we face here is less of a technical problem as
>it is a human, cultural, societal dilemma...and that's how to get
>people to communicate authentically, with an understanding for other
>people's point of view, and actually care about what they are
>communicating instead of resorting to their unconscious defenses and
>spewing their isolated, judgmental views of the world.

Absolutely. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it take
a bath. What we can do is make a language that explicitly improves
fidelity of human communication in digital information systems if
used. That's not spewing, per se, although it can be used for
spewing, and if that's what someone wants or  needs to express a
little more explicitly, so be it.

   It's up to people to use it and demonstrate that fidelity in all its
senses just makes more common sense, is more cost effective, more
beneficial, and easier than the current state of affairs.

>-mike
>
<snip--loved the planetary gender analysis>
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@...
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request

Yes.   We have some of those in the current schema.
We have not decided how detailed that needs to be,
but there are applications that depend on physical
descriptions.   See my last post on identity.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@...
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Sudhakar Gorti [mailto:Sudhakar.Gorti@...]

Hi,
Is anybody interested in physical description/characterstics of human
beings?
Let me know!

From: Michael Lacy [mailto:michael_lacy@...]

>1.) HumanML will be nothing more than another "language" for humans
>to use in order to communicate with each other. Some people
>communicate in English, others through music...the point is that
>groups of people communicate with one another through a common
>understanding of a universally accepted language within the group of
>people the person chooses to communicate with.

HumanML applications may be used by machines.  Universal acceptance is
another way of saying, valid by reference to the contract in
effect over the communication or simply, validatible message types.

>2.) Using this new language, people will still be able to express
>irony, simile, and metaphor in their interactions with others, the
>true meaning of their statements manifesting themselves indirectly
>into a human understandable format, obscuring the truth of their
>feelings behind a safe allusion to a story outside of themselves.

Yes or machines as noted above.  Nothing about HumanML constrains
actions or intent.  People who need allusion can have it.  Mystery
has it's place in language.

>3.) The more universal the language, the more powerful it will be.

Actually, the reverse is typically true.  The power of language comes
in identification of a domain and valid use.  Some say math is a
universal language but it takes a lot of ingenuity to get another
person to go out using just math.  It is doable but there may be a
better language for that.  "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."

>On one level, HumanML is just another communication medium for people to
>learn to express themselves through.  On another level, it attempts
>to capture the true feelings of a person and express them with the
>subtlety and directness that face-to-face interaction brings.

It is unlikely we can capture true feelings.  In fact, it would
be hard to prove it if we did.   We can enable someone to express
more depth of feeling than :-) should they need to do that.

>Think about having a conversation with someone else.  There are so many
>perceptual clues as to how that person feels, a rolling of the eyes,
>a crossing of the arms across the chest, a heavy sigh.

Look at it this way.  You walk into a room and a person sitting at
a table is rolling their eyes, sighing heavily, hugging their chest,
and their face is beet red.  You inquire, "Are you mad at me?" They
reply, "No!  What made you think that?"  You say, "Your demeanor."
They say, "I just swallowed a red pepper!"  You say, "Oh!".

That is one kind of application of HumanML: to confirm a communication
means what you perceive it to mean given some set of observable clues.
(The table setting was a clue, but in the context of sensitivity
about this person's feelings, one can "misinterpret".)  This is called
in behavioral science, superstitious acquisition.  One infers a meaning
but it is purely inference and because one might react angrily, the
other person, being both pepper-uncomfortable and embarassed, sees
the anger, reacts even more angrily, and now the anger is real but
after many exchanges, no one remembers the initial event... and frankly,
no one cares.  And that is the crux of the problem, for sure.

>(a) how to come up with a set of semantics and syntax to capture
>these non-verbal gestures in their full detail without trying to
>elaborate every possible variation of every possible feeling; and

Yes.  Not possible.  We will depend on application language designers
(eg, the genre designers) to capture these and use HumanML correctly
as a means for example, using an RDF ontology, to interpret the gesture.

>(b) how to get people to feel safety in expressing their true
>emotions and feelings to other human beings, something we have been
>notoriously bad at for several thousand years.

Can't do it.  They may learn by practice to get rid of insecurity,
but we can only build a trail to the stream, not make the horse drink.

We can't make them care once they are in motion.  We can provide a
way for them to find their way back to the water.   We assume going
into this that some people already care and that is how we got together.

There were quite a number of markup based hypertext systems that
predated HTML and were better designs.  HTML thrived on simplicity
but mostly because the applications were free and so was the network.

HumanML is a two dollar truffle. It is more expensive than lifesavers,
but left on the right desk for the right reason, quite enjoyable and
sets a nice mood for the day.  As long as one isn't too ambitious to
get a smile for it, or expect a reward, the act is sufficient.  Even
then, if you put it on my desk, it has to be sugarless.  Context counts
and that includes the inner emotions of the person it is sent to.

"The gift lovingly given, when one shall say
'Now must I gladly give!' when he who takes
Can render nothing back; made in due place,
Due time, and to a meet recipient,
Is a gift of Sattwan, fair and profitable."

Given an agent, we might control all of that.  Given a real person,
we can't.  That is why we don't use HumanML to model people although
we can use it to create messages and record observations.  We can
use these to create models that represent real people as long
as we are careful to denote when we are talking about something
the model does vs something the person feels.   We can make a
Bugs Bunny behave quite humanly but we can never make a person
believe Bugs is human.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

Hi,
Is anybody interested in physical description/characterstics of human beings?
Let me know!

Thx-
Sudhakar Gorti
Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Tel:917-320-9692

This got me thinking about some of the limitations of HumanML and I
thought I'd share with you all:

1.) HumanML will be nothing more than another "language" for humans
to use in order to communicate with each other. Some people
communicate in English, others through music...the point is that
groups of people communicate with one another through a common
understanding of a universally accepted language within the group of
people the person chooses to communicate with.

2.) Using this new language, people will still be able to express
irony, simile, and metaphor in their interactions with others, the
true meaning of their statements manifesting themselves indirectly
into a human understandable format, obscuring the truth of their
feelings behind a safe allusion to a story outside of themselves.

3.) The more universal the language, the more powerful it will be. On
one level, HumanML is just another communication medium for people to
learn to express themselves through.  On another level, it attempts
to capture the true feelings of a person and express them with the
subtlety and directness that face-to-face interaction brings. Think
about having a conversation with someone else.  There are so many
perceptual clues as to how that person feels, a rolling of the eyes,
a crossing of the arms across the chest, a heavy sigh. The big
challenges I see are:

(a) how to come up with a set of semantics and syntax to capture
these non-verbal gestures in their full detail without trying to
elaborate every possible variation of every possible feeling; and

(b) how to get people to feel safety in expressing their true
emotions and feelings to other human beings, something we have been
notoriously bad at for several thousand years.

I think the challenge we face here is less of a technical problem as
it is a human, cultural, societal dilemma...and that's how to get
people to communicate authentically, with an understanding for other
people's point of view, and actually care about what they are
communicating instead of resorting to their unconscious defenses and
spewing their isolated, judgmental views of the world.

-mike

--- In humanmarkup@y..., Niclas Olofsson <gurun@a...> wrote:
> Walter Hucal wrote:
> > Ok, MAYBE I am posting this to the wrong discussion group, and
maybe I
> > should post it to the Don Juan website instead...
>
> Hehe, mabye, mabye not. A techie point of view.
>
> Question: Who is responsible for providing the correct translation.
The
> sender or the reciever. I take it that Gray puts a lot of the
> responsability on the reciever. How does a HumanML processor work?
This
> is just out of my brain, probably wrong, but it does intrests me.
So,
> just for discussion purposes...
>
> First scenario: The translation is on the sender side. "No one
listens"
> translates by the Venusian agent to correct emotion "Need
attention".
> Recieving side (the martian agent) handle this and because it's a
> venusian, a special venusian, it translates to actions "hug | give
> flowers | listen ..." and into a state of loving. Now, what would
happen
> if this message, the event, from the vinusian wasn't interpretered
as
> from someone special? The martian would falsle trigger actions like
> "reject | turn-away | get Scared ..." and perhaps put the martian
agemt
> into a state of embarrassed or perhaps even hostile. Since the
venusian
> agent is listening careful to state changes on this particular
martian
> it would perhaps recieve a rejecting event back.
>
> Second scenario: The translation is on the receiving side. At point
> zero, the martian agent knows nothing but martian interpretations.
It
> does recognize venusian events and handles accordingly. No
translation
> is made other than based on historical data. After a while the
martian
> agent learns to react differently to different venusians, or
perhaps it
> even treats them all the same (what a disaster in its self:).
>
> Third scenario (the combination). Venusian agent does translation
based
> on who the receiving agent is. It means that the agent isn't
exactly in
> a broadcasting mode, but rather holding a session with the martian
> agent. The venusian agent learns to adjust it's events based on
feedback
> from 1) the venusian pilot, 2) the martian agent. The martian agent
> learns that some events sent by venusian agents need further
processing
> to get the expected result. It learns that "I love you" doesn't
always
> should put it into a state of "loving". Exactly how it learns this,
must
> be based on feedback from the venusian agent or it's pilot I guess.
>
> Scenario 1 and 2 builds into simple transision maps. Scenario builds
> into a neural network I guess...
>
>
> At least you know you have succeeded when the two agents start
fighting
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
> /Niclas

Walter Hucal wrote:
> Ok, MAYBE I am posting this to the wrong discussion group, and maybe I
> should post it to the Don Juan website instead...

Hehe, mabye, mabye not. A techie point of view.

Question: Who is responsible for providing the correct translation. The
sender or the reciever. I take it that Gray puts a lot of the
responsability on the reciever. How does a HumanML processor work? This
is just out of my brain, probably wrong, but it does intrests me. So,
just for discussion purposes...

First scenario: The translation is on the sender side. "No one listens"
translates by the Venusian agent to correct emotion "Need attention".
Recieving side (the martian agent) handle this and because it's a
venusian, a special venusian, it translates to actions "hug | give
flowers | listen ..." and into a state of loving. Now, what would happen
if this message, the event, from the vinusian wasn't interpretered as
from someone special? The martian would falsle trigger actions like
"reject | turn-away | get Scared ..." and perhaps put the martian agemt
into a state of embarrassed or perhaps even hostile. Since the venusian
agent is listening careful to state changes on this particular martian
it would perhaps recieve a rejecting event back.

Second scenario: The translation is on the receiving side. At point
zero, the martian agent knows nothing but martian interpretations. It
does recognize venusian events and handles accordingly. No translation
is made other than based on historical data. After a while the martian
agent learns to react differently to different venusians, or perhaps it
even treats them all the same (what a disaster in its self:).

Third scenario (the combination). Venusian agent does translation based
on who the receiving agent is. It means that the agent isn't exactly in
a broadcasting mode, but rather holding a session with the martian
agent. The venusian agent learns to adjust it's events based on feedback
from 1) the venusian pilot, 2) the martian agent. The martian agent
learns that some events sent by venusian agents need further processing
to get the expected result. It learns that "I love you" doesn't always
should put it into a state of "loving". Exactly how it learns this, must
be based on feedback from the venusian agent or it's pilot I guess.

Scenario 1 and 2 builds into simple transision maps. Scenario builds
into a neural network I guess...


At least you know you have succeeded when the two agents start fighting
:-)

Cheers,
/Niclas

> Here's one I remember, she said "Why are you being
> so nice to me?" [...]

I'd interpret that as someone who is just about to say, "if you think
you're going to go on *another* golfing holiday, then you're very much
mistaken", or words to that effect :-)

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Hello all,

It's not that often at all that I post to this group, but then I come across
something, and I'm thinking, hey, this might be something interesting to
post to Human ML:

"Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"...  I'm sure a few of you have
read this book by John Gray, PhD.

Martians and Venusians speak different languages.  Just check out Chapter 5
of this book.  Hey, if you can mark up the emails of all my ex-girlfriends,
I could sure appreciate it. ;-)  Call me a neophyte in this whole deal. ;-)

Well, let me pass along a couple examples here. A woman will say "No one
listens to me anymore".  Translated correctly into Martian, it means
something like: "I think I'm boring you.  I would appreciate it if you gave
me some special attention today, I'm just extra sensitive.  Can you listen
to me and ask supportive and caring questions for my reassurance?"  Now, if
a guy takes that literally, he'll hear something like: "I want someone
exciting and interesting, and you are not that person, you are boring me to
death.  You dissapoint me with your selfishness and coldness!".

Ouch.

Here's one I remember, she said "Why are you being so nice to me?"  And what
I thought she was saying was something like: "I don't deserve to be treated
this well!  You deserve better; I am not good enough for you".  (Which
turned out to be true anyway, LOL).  But when I asked one of my sisters to
translate that for me, she said she meant: "You are so kind and warm and
giving to me.  That makes me feel very special.  Tell me how special I am to
you!".

Apparently, a guy shouldn't take what a woman says too literally.  It is
just her dramatic way of expressing her feelings and emotions.  Did anyone
know that?  Raise your hand...  Has this been discussed before?  If so, I
apologize...

Ok, MAYBE I am posting this to the wrong discussion group, and maybe I
should post it to the Don Juan website instead...

Later,
-Walt





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

My primary background is actually in engineering and technology.
However, 2 years ago I started playing guitar and have come to the
realization of the enormous expressive capabilities of music and the
arts.  By playing a song for a mere 3 minutes, I can express so much
more emotion and subtlety than by trying to describe it in words or
through my day job as software development engineer. I have tapped
into a mechanism that best channels and expresses my inner feelings.

However, what I have also learned is that understanding of these
emotions by others is COMPLETELY subjective. The people who respond
most to my limited playing capabilities are other, more advanced
musicians who understand the language of music.  Alot of my friends
who have a limited musical-emotive vocabulary often tune me out and,
unfortunately, miss out on or do do not understand the emotions I am
expressing to them through music.

So in order for HumanML to work effectively, there will be the
requirement that both the person expressing him/her self as well as
the the receiver of that information have a common understanding of
the vocabulary used...in this case, HumanML. Additionally, it
requires people to acknowledge and understand their own emotions AS
WELL AS those of others, something that MANY, MANY people cannot and
will not do because it is frightening for them.

Think about it, if people understood...and I mean truly understood
and empathized with...the emotions of others, there would be alot
less greed in this world. For instance, if Hitler and the Nazis of
WWII Germany understood that the effect of their anger was
catastrophic for millions of people, do you think they would have
done what they did? If they stood in the shoes of the people they
were trying to exterminate and sincerely understood the situation
(i.e. imminent death) that these people were facing, do you think
they still would have carried out the actions they did. Probably not.

This is a long-winded way of saying that for HumanML to be successful
requires that people get in touch with and acknowledge not only their
own feelings about the world, but more importantly, those of others.
Otherwise. it'll just be another way for people to espouse their own
views without regards to others.  In music, true communication occurs
when everyone listens to and responds to one another. That's alot to
ask for, especially through anonymous interface (the internet) where
people do not have to take personal responsibility for their actions.

sorry about the long response.

-mike



--- In humanmarkup@y..., "Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga" <rkthunga@h...>
wrote:
> (The discussion has moved to OASIS--please check out
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup) and join the new
mailing list.)
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> This is very insightful.  The arts certainly convey human qualities
in a manner that goes beyond simply words.  HumanML serves as the
middle layer--the layer of computer readable, extractable, explicity
emotional metadata.  Art and music could translate into HumanML, or
translate out of HumanML, based on the applications on either end.
>
> We are currently assembling taxonomies, or classifications from
various spheres.  Music and art vocabularies could be a great source
of inspiration for HumanMarkup.
>
> Certainly what could aid this process are some standard
classification systems of human characteristics through music.  Are
you coming from a music background yourself?
>
> Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
>
> > Music is often considered as a "universal" language for emotion
that
> > can be understood by all people from different backgrounds.
Through
> > music, one can express sadness, anger, humor, elation...in fact,
just
> > about every emotion conceivable that comprise the "human
experience."
> >
> > I'm wondering if it might make sense to look to music and other
> > artistic endeavors as guides to the creation of HumanML. The arts
can
> > be considered as vehicles for the expression of human emotions,
with
> > an infinitely wide range of subtlety and directness.  By
examining
> > music and understanding the vocabulary used to express different
> > emotions, we might be able to understand better what it is that
makes
> > us human, that makes us expressive.
> >
> > There's no need to reinvent the wheel here (at least that's what
I
> > think)...we just need to modify it to suit the context and
> > environment in which we are seeking to express ourselves. Music
and
> > the arts are but manifestations of this same principle which we
can
> > look to as guides.
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > -michael lacy

Another way to look at that is in terms of
a control language for instruments if you
consider body parts to be instruments. Music
as several markings for expressing a phrase
(eg, legato, staccato) and how to articulate
each or several notes of music.  Similarly
midi allows you to set such parameters as
velocity (how hard in theory the key is
struck or how much effort), and shaping
of a note (Attack Decay Sustain Release
or ADSR for short), duration and so forth.
The EMOTE article describes Spreading,
Enclosing, Rising, Sinking, Advancing and
Retreating) for shaped of torso motions,
and claims Effort as a high level term
that reflect inner psychological conditions.

So, just as in psychology there are multiple
schools for analysis and terminologies, we
are faced with the task of either adapting
some one or all of these, or creating categories
from which any or all of these might be
derived by transformation.  A tough problem
and by now the newcomers should have some
idea of what the last number of months
have been about.

Note that Sean demonstrated with RDF how
one can use a relationship and set to
show rough equivalences and we have
in XML Schemas several mechanisms for
declaring types and derivations of types,
so in terms our definitional tools, this is doable.
Getting the different groups to accept the
equivalences definitionally can be an
arduous task.  Caveat vendor.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
My concern is mostly that HumanML stay high level
and very easy to use so that the derived languages
get most of the work and the HumanML is repurposable.
Even as we look at domains, we have to ask ourselves
first what the role of HumanML is quite precisely
in the abstraction layer.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:kurt@...]


This is perhaps off topic, but is anyone aware of a MIDI to XML schema map?
I have to wonder about the intersection between an XML-ized MIDI, SMIL and
HumanML ...

Ack.  I meant to type, "I'm not sure where that goes."

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len)

The contribution of that to HumanML
seems scarce though, so I'm sure where that goes.

HyTime grew out of music work and there have been
different efforts to use SGML and musical notation
systems.  MIDI being essentially control information
to a synthethizer for patches, GM instruments,
expression parameters, etc. could certainly be
XMLized.  The contribution of that to HumanML
seems scarce though, so I'm sure where that goes.

In the genre example, I borrowed <par> and <seq>
from SMIL 1.0 to demonstrate nesting of chronemic
information to describe actions.  It is one
of those overlaps in that scheduling
is vital to almost any simulation or analysis
of time-based information.  If you examine
the interpolation components of VRML, you
see similar concepts for key frame-based animation.

A problem of HumanML will be to decide just
what is high level information and what should
be added in by transformation given that the
downtranslation target will have it's own
representations the closer one gets to the
implementation objects.   EMOTE has very
interesting concepts for shaping the motions
of an animated character using a level that
seems to be between what HumanML has described
and what H-anim might use.  I am unsure if this
is middleware data or goes in HumanML or H-anim.  I am
inclined to think it is a middleware dataset
in which HumanML uses a simple intensity value
to scale an emotion, an EMOTE engine target
gets that and creates a more detailed LMA
based dataset, then the final rendering in
say H-anim or SVG is created.  Hard to say
and other opinions on that would be appreciated.

My concern is mostly that HumanML stay high level
and very easy to use so that the derived languages
get most of the work and the HumanML is repurposable.
Even as we look at domains, we have to ask ourselves
first what the role of HumanML is quite precisely
in the abstraction layer.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt Cagle [mailto:kurt@...]


This is perhaps off topic, but is anyone aware of a MIDI to XML schema map?
I have to wonder about the intersection between an XML-ized MIDI, SMIL and
HumanML ...

This is perhaps off topic, but is anyone aware of a MIDI to XML schema map?
I have to wonder about the intersectionbetween an XML-ized MIDI, SMIL and
HumanML ...

-- Kurt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Lacy" <michael_lacy@...>
To: <humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:43 AM
Subject: [humanmarkup] food for thought


> Music is often considered as a "universal" language for emotion that
> can be understood by all people from different backgrounds. Through
> music, one can express sadness, anger, humor, elation...in fact, just
> about every emotion conceivable that comprise the "human experience."
>
> I'm wondering if it might make sense to look to music and other
> artistic endeavors as guides to the creation of HumanML. The arts can
> be considered as vehicles for the expression of human emotions, with
> an infinitely wide range of subtlety and directness.  By examining
> music and understanding the vocabulary used to express different
> emotions, we might be able to understand better what it is that makes
> us human, that makes us expressive.
>
> There's no need to reinvent the wheel here (at least that's what I
> think)...we just need to modify it to suit the context and
> environment in which we are seeking to express ourselves. Music and
> the arts are but manifestations of this same principle which we can
> look to as guides.
>
> thoughts?
>
> -michael lacy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to:
> humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Yes, we discussed that given there are some
musicians on the list.  Also note that the
Laban Movement Analysis as referenced in the
paper "The EMOTE Model for Shape And Effort"
cited by Rex a few days ago makes references
to this comparison.

The musical analogy comes up often in discussions
of sequencing, intensity factors, articulation
etc.  It's a good comparison.  It can't be applied
directly in the sense that it is not an emotion,
but a rendering based on an emotion or evocative
of one.  It is tough to get that distinction but vital.
We did a thread on Indian dance drama and ragas
to consider this.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lacy [mailto:michael_lacy@...]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:44 PM
To: humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [humanmarkup] food for thought


Music is often considered as a "universal" language for emotion that
can be understood by all people from different backgrounds. Through
music, one can express sadness, anger, humor, elation...in fact, just
about every emotion conceivable that comprise the "human experience."

I'm wondering if it might make sense to look to music and other
artistic endeavors as guides to the creation of HumanML. The arts can
be considered as vehicles for the expression of human emotions, with
an infinitely wide range of subtlety and directness.  By examining
music and understanding the vocabulary used to express different
emotions, we might be able to understand better what it is that makes
us human, that makes us expressive.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here (at least that's what I
think)...we just need to modify it to suit the context and
environment in which we are seeking to express ourselves. Music and
the arts are but manifestations of this same principle which we can
look to as guides.

thoughts?

Music is often considered as a "universal" language for emotion that
can be understood by all people from different backgrounds. Through
music, one can express sadness, anger, humor, elation...in fact, just
about every emotion conceivable that comprise the "human experience."

I'm wondering if it might make sense to look to music and other
artistic endeavors as guides to the creation of HumanML. The arts can
be considered as vehicles for the expression of human emotions, with
an infinitely wide range of subtlety and directness.  By examining
music and understanding the vocabulary used to express different
emotions, we might be able to understand better what it is that makes
us human, that makes us expressive.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here (at least that's what I
think)...we just need to modify it to suit the context and
environment in which we are seeking to express ourselves. Music and
the arts are but manifestations of this same principle which we can
look to as guides.

thoughts?

-michael lacy

Working my way up from the bottom of the mail,
I just saw Norm's comment on the need to look
at gestural intensity and expand it.  That
is the kind of feedback that is most immediately
useful.  I'll read the paper and reply.

We can evaluate any system and see what it
has to offer.  I could fill in the schema
immediately with all of the types developed
for public safety and add oh, a few hundred
elements.  But that is using HumanML as a
means to productize and even if it slows
us down, we should be careful to ensure
we are spec'ing repurposable datasets.
This is a difficult balancing act of course;
too abstract and we get ineefficient garbage
bag design; too specific and we can't repurpose.
So when proposing data types, we have to ask
where they do or don't add to the job of
describing humans and human communications.

Classification is an art form.  There are
techniques and rules of thumb to guide
but often they are just rulesOfDaToolz.
It takes a bit of intuition to work out
the rest.  That is why things like AI
tended to fall apart in the crunch.

I just subscribed to the OASIS list.
But we are in motion. :-)

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@...]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:06 AM
To: humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com;
humanmarkup-comment@...
Cc: James Smith
Subject: RE: [humanmarkup] Re: [h-anim] HumanML Thoughts


Good work. Right. It is part of the middleware. I'll try to enlist
Jan to help. I thought this had moved to OASIS already? I just added
it.

Good work. Right. It is part of the middleware. I'll try to enlist
Jan to help. I thought this had moved to OASIS already? I just added
it.

At 8:22 AM -0500 8/23/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I'm pulling Carol from the reply list because we are probably
>bumming her out with design discussion.
>
>Rex or Niclas:  the UPenn work has never been publicly discussed
>on the list.  If you have studied it, can you provide a summary
>of the what Laban Movement Analysis and the EMOTE engine do and
>how they work.   It may be that these are implementations of the
>kind of middleware that Cindy states is HumanML's to do, but it
>is also likely that these are implementation solutions people
>can use but are not necessarily useful for the spec other than
>to show the spec can be used by them.  In other words, they
>are systems that can consume HumanML but don't define it. 
>Without more details, it's hard to tell.
>
>Len
>http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
>Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
>Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Niclas Olofsson [mailto:gurun@...]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 6:58 PM
>To: humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com
>Cc: James Smith; carol.geyer@...
>Subject: Re: [humanmarkup] Re: [h-anim] HumanML Thoughts
>
>
><?xml version="1.0" ?>
>
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>>  Nic, the time is shortly to arrive for just that exploration. There
>>  is a thread with NormBadler at UPenn's Human Simulation Group with
>>  Matt Beitler et al,  that I will eventually get into some kind of
>>  presentable form for both HumanML and H-Anim--using Laban Movement
>>  Analysis and Badler's EMOTE engine that fills the bill as far as I
>>  can see right now.
>
>Very interesting, but nope, that alone will not do it. A very good
>starting point though. Looking at EMOTE it appears to me as yet another
>level of abstraction that perhaps would make things easier. It can
>perhaps provide a level of abstraction above FAP's and provide H-Anim
>(or whatever human animation format) with a somewhat more dynamic
>presentation. In the same time it provides authors and computers with a
>more fuzzy means of communications.
>
>But (a big BUT), in regular software design terms, most of this stuff
>belongs in the outermost presentation layer. EMOTE gets close to filling
>in as the presentation logic (backed up by h-anim representation). I'm
>looking for the layer beneath it, the business logic of human
>communication. Does it make any sense? Probably not. But I do collective
>design. The system we are building right now took me since january to
>design, but we build the core in only 3 weeks. I think this will work
>pretty much the same, only it will take a couple of years instead. If
>this where ready for prime time I'd be the first to start a task force
>around it. But it isn't. It will take years. And I'll be there then.
>Waiting. After all, this is what MY life is all about. I'm 30 today. I
>have time :-)
>
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to:
>humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

I'm pulling Carol from the reply list because we are probably
bumming her out with design discussion.

Rex or Niclas:  the UPenn work has never been publicly discussed
on the list.  If you have studied it, can you provide a summary
of the what Laban Movement Analysis and the EMOTE engine do and
how they work.   It may be that these are implementations of the
kind of middleware that Cindy states is HumanML's to do, but it
is also likely that these are implementation solutions people
can use but are not necessarily useful for the spec other than
to show the spec can be used by them.  In other words, they
are systems that can consume HumanML but don't define it.
Without more details, it's hard to tell.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Niclas Olofsson [mailto:gurun@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 6:58 PM
To: humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com
Cc: James Smith; carol.geyer@...
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup] Re: [h-anim] HumanML Thoughts


<?xml version="1.0" ?>

Rex Brooks wrote:
> Nic, the time is shortly to arrive for just that exploration. There
> is a thread with NormBadler at UPenn's Human Simulation Group with
> Matt Beitler et al,  that I will eventually get into some kind of
> presentable form for both HumanML and H-Anim--using Laban Movement
> Analysis and Badler's EMOTE engine that fills the bill as far as I
> can see right now.

Very interesting, but nope, that alone will not do it. A very good
starting point though. Looking at EMOTE it appears to me as yet another
level of abstraction that perhaps would make things easier. It can
perhaps provide a level of abstraction above FAP's and provide H-Anim
(or whatever human animation format) with a somewhat more dynamic
presentation. In the same time it provides authors and computers with a
more fuzzy means of communications.

But (a big BUT), in regular software design terms, most of this stuff
belongs in the outermost presentation layer. EMOTE gets close to filling
in as the presentation logic (backed up by h-anim representation). I'm
looking for the layer beneath it, the business logic of human
communication. Does it make any sense? Probably not. But I do collective
design. The system we are building right now took me since january to
design, but we build the core in only 3 weeks. I think this will work
pretty much the same, only it will take a couple of years instead. If
this where ready for prime time I'd be the first to start a task force
around it. But it isn't. It will take years. And I'll be there then.
Waiting. After all, this is what MY life is all about. I'm 30 today. I
have time :-)

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:52:14 EDT
From: Norm Badler <badler@...>

One parameter for gesture intensity is insufficient for a realistic
spread of
human gesture performance.  See D. Chi, M. Costa, L. Zhao, and N.
Badler: "The
EMOTE model for Effort and Shape," ACM SIGGRAPH '00, New Orleans, LA,
July,
2000, pp. 173-182
(http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~badler/siggraph00/emote.pdf)

Norm


>  Hi Everyone,
>
>  Actually, HumanML will benefit most from a spare, very
functionally
>  practical h-anim 2001 spec that incorporates a way to let the
current
>  segmented facial structure work for a continuous mesh face by
either
>  allowing the segments to map to an envelope of vertices or
translate
>  directly to a set of displacers for the vertices that correspond
to
>  the segments, also an envelope. (For my purposes, I would prefer
that
>  the muscles of the face be modeled within the segment structure so
>  that percentages of contractions for each muscle could be
specified
>  for any given expression.)
>
>  That, as with the continuous mesh, requires a good weighting
engine
>  for the influence of overlapping envelopes or shared vertices. The
>  reason for focusing on facial gestures/expressions is that
>  talking-head windows are the most likely initial applications that
>  people in business or messaging systems (as opposed to using an
SMIL
>  video component or otherwise synced video signal) will want to
adopt
>  for animated human agents, or sales rep/CRM bots. If animation
>  encapsulation, or that particular part of it, could be advanced,
that
>  would be nice.
>
>  Secondarily, as noted previously by Cindy I believe, UMEL needs to
be
>  involved in setting up a library of gestural behaviors which can
take
>  0 -1 decimal values for intensities. These behaviors probably
should
>  not be collected until after the 2001 spec is in its final
approval
>  phases, although it would be helpful to work on them as we go
along.
>  I will certainly be doing that as I can.
>
>  ( I have asked Mark Callow how he rated Max 4 for its upgraded
>  Character Studio, and he tells me that their upgraded bones
(segments
>  for our purposes) system is definitely worth the upgrade, so I
will
>  be doing that for my work in this area sometime in the month of
>  October. My plate is just too full with getting the class
hierarchy
>  of HumanML (my area of specialty) in shape and handling
organization
>  duties as designated secretary.)
>
>  The continous mesh for h-anim was the development I was waiting
for
>  in order to move forward. In that meantime HumanML came along and
>  promises to give us the engine to drive X3D and handle all the
>  web-based object-swapping work at a level above the nuts and bolts
we
>  work with.
>
>    Now behaviors can be developed that won't be helplessly outdated
by
>  a continous mesh spec. We already have the attachment points, and
>  modeling cloth has come a long way in the meantime, as has
bandwidth
>  and processor power, so clothing, accessories, and avatar-wearable
>  gadgets are in the offing. 64-bit is in the pipeline now, and that
is
>  the penultimate piece of the puzzle for a workable cyberspace as
WE
>  see it. Whopptee-bleeping-dooo!
>
>  Ciao,
>  Rex
>
>    At 10:03 AM +0100 8/22/01, James Smith wrote:
>  >Hi all,
>  >
>  >It seems to me that the thing that would be most useful to the
HumanML
>  >people, as far as H-Anim is concerned, is the specification of the
>  >animation encapsulation method. Was any progress made on this at
the
>  >SIGGRAPH meeting?
>  >
>  >Apologies for not being able to attend, by the way...
>  >
>  >cheers,
>  >--
>  >James Smith - Vapour Technology - james@...
>  >www: http://www.vapourtech.com/          ICQ: 53372434
>  >PGP: B42F 9ACD D166 018C 57F8 8698 098E FAA2 C03B C9ED
>  >======================================================
>  >"There's no explaining the things that might happen;
>  >  there's now a new home for technology in fashion."
>  >         - The Clint Boon Experience
>  >======================================================
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >To remove yourself from the h-anim list, mail the command
>  >`unsubscribe h-anim' to Majordomo@...
>
>
>  --
>  Rex Brooks
>  GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
>  W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
>  Email: rexb@...
>  Tel: 510-849-2309
>  Fax: By Request
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To remove yourself from the h-anim list, mail the command
>  `unsubscribe h-anim' to Majordomo@...

The most important thing is to ensure that we are all on the same page (or
in this case, the same Discussion List).

Hopefully with that being clear (;-)), we'll center on developing the
following deliverables that we should get to Working Draft status by
September 17th, 2001 (our first meeting).

Much work has already been done in the YahooGroups in these areas.  At this
stage, we will be formalizing the documents and ideas previously created, as
well as incorporating new ones.  These will set the tone for the TC, and
incorporates Manos suggested project progression.

Timetable:  Now until September 17th, 2001

     1) Domain:  Taxonomies to include (what is part of HumanML, what isn't)
     2) Applications:  What are the major application areas of HumanML
     3) Requirements:  What are the design features of HumanML (based on
Applications)
     4) New Deliverable Schedule:  (includes currently listed deliverables
[1] as well as additional applications, alternative classifications,
cross-correlation efforts)

If this sounds reasonable set of "pre-meeting" deliverables, then we can
start organizing our ideas in this fashion...So then, what *is*
HumanMarkup...?[2]



<manos>
1) Study current non XML popular classification systems (from DDC[1] to
NAICS[2] to "Classification of Living Things"[4] (interesting, includes
humans) to whatever we would like to focus on by building modules). This
would provide us with a jumpstart on any topic we might want to get our
hands in. It will also help transitioning existing knowledge bases.

2) HumanML will be used mostly as metadata (let's not argue on the term
context now ;-). I think it is wise to formally import existing
namespaces (e.g. the Dublin Core [4]) to provide interoperability. Of
course this import can be hidden or even extended. For example, we can
define properties of type dc:creator with more specific context. This
can be done via rdfs:subPropertyOf [5] (thanks Sean! Will anyone believe
I had the absurd idea to use XML names for this functionality...
Sheesh). You got to love those OOP concepts in RDF.

3) Define requirements. Per module probably.

4) Develop our own classifications. Different people will head towards
different ways on this, but it is expected and wanted.

5) Start working on real applications. This sector is much dependent on
the above three.
</manos>

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/humanmarkup
[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup


-----
Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
HumanMarkup Chair
rkthunga@...
(646) 456-9076

Slashdot article on the efforts!



http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/22/1936200&mode=thread

You're right. I will see to it that this doesn't recur, at least as I can.

<chagrin>Oops</chagrin>
Rex

>I think that Carol 'probably' doesn't belong on this email thread ;)
>
>Ranjeeth Kumar thunga
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@...>
>To: <humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com>
>Cc: "James Smith" <james@...>; <carol.geyer@...>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [humanmarkup] Re: [h-anim] HumanML Thoughts
>
>
>>
>>  Lucky You.  I'm not quite so lucky, but I expect to see it in about
>>  the timeline you suggest. When I said shortly, I meant that beginning
>>  work on it was in the next year from now--about the time I expect to
>>  see fairly mature displacers, weighting algorithms, and nurbs
>>  calculations for crease angles in H-Anim, and the beginning of
>>  radiosity lighting engines in X3D. About the same time frame for
>>  64-bit Itanium to become desktop reality--maybe a little more. that
>>  makes it 18-24 months or so.
>>
>>  I sure hope it is still <?xml version="1.0"> and not 1.1 or 1.2. But
>>  then, I didn't think Blueberry was worth all the fuss, so that shows
>>  what I know.
>>
>>  Ciao,
>>  Rex
>>
>>  At 1:58 AM +0200 8/23/01, Niclas Olofsson wrote:
>>  ><?xml version="1.0" ?>
>>  >
>>  >Rex Brooks wrote:
>>  >>  Nic, the time is shortly to arrive for just that exploration. There
>>  >>  is a thread with NormBadler at UPenn's Human Simulation Group with
>>  >>  Matt Beitler et al,  that I will eventually get into some kind of
>>  >>  presentable form for both HumanML and H-Anim--using Laban Movement
>>  >>  Analysis and Badler's EMOTE engine that fills the bill as far as I
>>  >>  can see right now.
>>  >
>>  >Very interesting, but nope, that alone will not do it. A very good
>>  >starting point though. Looking at EMOTE it appears to me as yet another
>>  >level of abstraction that perhaps would make things easier. It can
>>  >perhaps provide a level of abstraction above FAP's and provide H-Anim
>>  >(or whatever human animation format) with a somewhat more dynamic
>>  >presentation. In the same time it provides authors and computers with a
>>  >more fuzzy means of communications.
>>  >
>>  >But (a big BUT), in regular software design terms, most of this stuff
>>  >belongs in the outermost presentation layer. EMOTE gets close to filling
>>  >in as the presentation logic (backed up by h-anim representation). I'm
>>  >looking for the layer beneath it, the business logic of human
>>  >communication. Does it make any sense? Probably not. But I do collective
>>  >design. The system we are building right now took me since january to
>>  >design, but we build the core in only 3 weeks. I think this will work
>>  >pretty much the same, only it will take a couple of years instead. If
>>  >this where ready for prime time I'd be the first to start a task force
>>  >around it. But it isn't. It will take years. And I'll be there then.
>>  >Waiting. After all, this is what MY life is all about. I'm 30 today. I
>>  >have time :-)
>>  >
>>  >Cheers,
>>  >/Niclas
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >To unsubscribe send an email to:
>>  >humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Rex Brooks
>>  GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
>>  W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
>>  Email: rexb@...
>>  Tel: 510-849-2309
>>  Fax: By Request
>>
>>
>>  To unsubscribe send an email to:
>>  humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to:
>humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

I think that Carol 'probably' doesn't belong on this email thread ;)

Ranjeeth Kumar thunga

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@...>
To: <humanmarkup@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "James Smith" <james@...>; <carol.geyer@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [humanmarkup] Re: [h-anim] HumanML Thoughts


>
> Lucky You.  I'm not quite so lucky, but I expect to see it in about
> the timeline you suggest. When I said shortly, I meant that beginning
> work on it was in the next year from now--about the time I expect to
> see fairly mature displacers, weighting algorithms, and nurbs
> calculations for crease angles in H-Anim, and the beginning of
> radiosity lighting engines in X3D. About the same time frame for
> 64-bit Itanium to become desktop reality--maybe a little more. that
> makes it 18-24 months or so.
>
> I sure hope it is still <?xml version="1.0"> and not 1.1 or 1.2. But
> then, I didn't think Blueberry was worth all the fuss, so that shows
> what I know.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 1:58 AM +0200 8/23/01, Niclas Olofsson wrote:
> ><?xml version="1.0" ?>
> >
> >Rex Brooks wrote:
> >>  Nic, the time is shortly to arrive for just that exploration. There
> >>  is a thread with NormBadler at UPenn's Human Simulation Group with
> >>  Matt Beitler et al,  that I will eventually get into some kind of
> >>  presentable form for both HumanML and H-Anim--using Laban Movement
> >>  Analysis and Badler's EMOTE engine that fills the bill as far as I
> >>  can see right now.
> >
> >Very interesting, but nope, that alone will not do it. A very good
> >starting point though. Looking at EMOTE it appears to me as yet another
> >level of abstraction that perhaps would make things easier. It can
> >perhaps provide a level of abstraction above FAP's and provide H-Anim
> >(or whatever human animation format) with a somewhat more dynamic
> >presentation. In the same time it provides authors and computers with a
> >more fuzzy means of communications.
> >
> >But (a big BUT), in regular software design terms, most of this stuff
> >belongs in the outermost presentation layer. EMOTE gets close to filling
> >in as the presentation logic (backed up by h-anim representation). I'm
> >looking for the layer beneath it, the business logic of human
> >communication. Does it make any sense? Probably not. But I do collective
> >design. The system we are building right now took me since january to
> >design, but we build the core in only 3 weeks. I think this will work
> >pretty much the same, only it will take a couple of years instead. If
> >this where ready for prime time I'd be the first to start a task force
> >around it. But it isn't. It will take years. And I'll be there then.
> >Waiting. After all, this is what MY life is all about. I'm 30 today. I
> >have time :-)
> >
> >Cheers,
> >/Niclas
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe send an email to:
> >humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
> W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
> Email: rexb@...
> Tel: 510-849-2309
> Fax: By Request
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to:
> humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Lucky You.  I'm not quite so lucky, but I expect to see it in about
the timeline you suggest. When I said shortly, I meant that beginning
work on it was in the next year from now--about the time I expect to
see fairly mature displacers, weighting algorithms, and nurbs
calculations for crease angles in H-Anim, and the beginning of
radiosity lighting engines in X3D. About the same time frame for
64-bit Itanium to become desktop reality--maybe a little more. that
makes it 18-24 months or so.

I sure hope it is still <?xml version="1.0"> and not 1.1 or 1.2. But
then, I didn't think Blueberry was worth all the fuss, so that shows
what I know.

Ciao,
Rex

At 1:58 AM +0200 8/23/01, Niclas Olofsson wrote:
><?xml version="1.0" ?>
>
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>>  Nic, the time is shortly to arrive for just that exploration. There
>>  is a thread with NormBadler at UPenn's Human Simulation Group with
>>  Matt Beitler et al,  that I will eventually get into some kind of
>>  presentable form for both HumanML and H-Anim--using Laban Movement
>>  Analysis and Badler's EMOTE engine that fills the bill as far as I
>>  can see right now.
>
>Very interesting, but nope, that alone will not do it. A very good
>starting point though. Looking at EMOTE it appears to me as yet another
>level of abstraction that perhaps would make things easier. It can
>perhaps provide a level of abstraction above FAP's and provide H-Anim
>(or whatever human animation format) with a somewhat more dynamic
>presentation. In the same time it provides authors and computers with a
>more fuzzy means of communications.
>
>But (a big BUT), in regular software design terms, most of this stuff
>belongs in the outermost presentation layer. EMOTE gets close to filling
>in as the presentation logic (backed up by h-anim representation). I'm
>looking for the layer beneath it, the business logic of human
>communication. Does it make any sense? Probably not. But I do collective
>design. The system we are building right now took me since january to
>design, but we build the core in only 3 weeks. I think this will work
>pretty much the same, only it will take a couple of years instead. If
>this where ready for prime time I'd be the first to start a task force
>around it. But it isn't. It will take years. And I'll be there then.
>Waiting. After all, this is what MY life is all about. I'm 30 today. I
>have time :-)
>
>Cheers,
>/Niclas
>
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to:
>humanmarkup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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