[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: infinite depth to namespaces
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Fuchs, Matthew" <email@example.com>,Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 13:26:50 -0500
Most research in human-machine communication modeling
and research into topics such as ontological commitment
emphasize behavioral fidelity (aka, least surprise,
don't shock the monkey). In HCI research, after
iterative stages of development, the dialog becomes
system-directed (fewer ad hoc jumps, machine controls
dialog). The principles wherein each node does as it
will or can with the information reflect human-to-human
communication models. These models typically demonstrate
redundancy, false starts, fillers, use of anaphors and
ellipsis (see Amodeus research). Because these can
add substantial overhead to system resource consumption,
they are avoided in most machine-mediated communication.
If one envisages a continuum of communication behavior
that is modified both in content and structure by iteration,
human-to-human communication style is best applied in the
early negotiation stage. After domains and tasks are
thoroughly understood by consenting parties, the more
formal machine directed forms are better applied.
I think many of the contributors to this thread are
considering only one extreme or the other of the
communication curve of knowledge acquisition that
leads to contract-based systems.
<bite>Until you know what they know, they don't know what you know.</bite>
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:email@example.com]
My goal is to better enable authors (of schemas and instances) to
better convey their intent (whatever that means) and allow application
authors to exploit that to write better applications more easily - I'm a
toolsmith. While I'm not personally a big fan of the PSVI, I do know that
it's not intended to straightjacket anyone.
However, while I'm not at all concerned with what you do with information
internally, externally I'm very interested in how you behave if we're to do
business together. It's important that you adhere to schemas we've agreed
to use, or my job of understanding you becomes very difficult. This is
especially true if we're to do business in a community with many
participants - I can't possibly afford to build one-off processors for
everyone I do business with.