Human Markup Language 224
emc3 writes: "This article at InternetNews says that OASIS, the XML interoperability consortium, has announced the formation of a committee to develop Human Markup Language, 'to promote a specification for conveying human characteristics through XML.' The idea is to codify psychological, emotive, cultural, and physical characteristics in a standardized way. They say that the most obvious application would be for describing phsyical characteristics and actions in virtual reality environments. Other real-world uses could include describing a patient's psychological state for medical records. The OASIS press release is here. No more :-/ for me. From now on, it's <smirk>!"
Just another tool for Big Brother (Score:1)
Re:Just another tool for Big Brother (Score:2)
I've worked on systems used by police and other organisations to catalogue people. They've already got all the classification methods they need for describing people - height, build, hair colour and length...
You get mugged, you walk into a police station to report it. They can sit you down in front of a computer, ask you a bunch of questions about your assailant and bring up mugshots of the people on their database who match that description.
Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Well, one day, I got a call because the system had gone tits-up just as a witness positively identified a man who had carried out a racially-motivated murder. I had no qualms whatsoever about delving in and pulling out the guy's details so they could send a car around to arrest him.
It's not the technology that's at fault when it comes to invasion of privacy - it's the manner in which the technology is used.
Jack
Re:Just another tool for Big Brother (Score:2)
I think you meant (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I think you meant (Score:2, Funny)
<idea>I know I'll just say this:<inspired>I've always liked <smirk
</comment>
Re:I think you meant (Score:1)
Re:I think you meant (Score:1)
Re:I think you meant (Score:2)
Re:I think you meant (Score:1)
but not !
Re:I think you meant (Score:1)
In case you didn't knew- valid break is <BR/>,
but not </br>!
br tags (Score:2)
Perhaps I should post a rant to Source Forge?
P.S. Why doesn't Slashdot do HTML unescaping on the Subject when you select Extrans mode? < and > get eaten up, and so do their contents.
Re:I think you meant (Score:2, Informative)
xHTML is case sensitive and all elements are lowercase. Of course, you technically need to use <br
Re:I think you meant (Score:1)
ok i give up, why is this funny?
It is not funny at all. It is just the most obvious thing that any geek reading this posting would have responded. I mean, the poster should have realised that what he was writing, by itself, isn't valid XML.
Re:I think you meant (Score:2, Funny)
Fluff (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fluff (Score:2)
You forgot to cite your quotation:
"This seems like a whole lot of fluff, a romantic idea that will just end up being emotes in tags, and pretty lame."
-- Tim Berners-Lee's mother.Uhh... (Score:2)
Re:Uhh... (Score:2)
Damn slashdot's tag filtering...
Does this mean (Score:2)
funny text (Score:1)
Funny text (correct one) (Score:1)
Now I don't mean to go off on a... (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously (Score:1)
The idea is to codify psychological, emotive, cultural, and physical characteristics in a standardized way. They say that the most obvious application would be for describing phsyical characteristics and actions in virtual reality environments.
So, since describing physical characteristics is the most obvious application (not to mention probably the easiest), we say "physical" last and throw in "psychological, emotive, cultural" in front of it, just so everybody wonders what this is all about.
Nothing new (Score:1)
Although perhaps that should now be <grin />...
Re:Nothing new (Score:1)
Anyway, the point is that html/xml stole the computer science standard characters which denote an encoding. So saying <grin> is a textual representation of some greater description of a grin. That is, the <> characters MEAN "an encoding of what lies within". <grin> was never a TAG, it was a contextual clue suggesting a real grin on the face of the author.
One so often missed...
Re:Nothing new (Score:1)
I think it's mostly been replaced by <g>
Easier to type, I guess. Or maybe I'm just lazy.
Of course this whole thing is pure silliness. They seem to be expecting that everyone is just going to switch over this weird system over current net-speak. I mean XML is nice and all, but... I kind of doubt a small group of people can come up with a better method of actually communicating emotion/intention than has evolved over the last 15-20 years by literally millions of people. For medical stuff, VR, etc, it could end up having some decent applications, however.
To put it simply, I read the article, and... LOL.
tear drop (Score:1)
The codification of laws was a great advance for humankind.
The codification of of humankind offers no such benefit.
As if emoticons were not bad enough.... (Score:1)
Bot programming... (Score:1)
Uhoh... (Score:1)
Re:Uhoh... (Score:1)
Wayne's VR world. (Score:2)
Re:Wayne's VR world. (Score:3, Funny)
SCHWING Check out that hot babe
Great! (Score:1)
-enigmabomb-
Oasis (Score:3, Informative)
real world uses (Score:1)
uhmmm..
<phobias>cats; 2010 a.d.</phobias>
I have this wonderful thing for describing myself. (Score:1)
It's called a .jpg. Maybe you've heard of them?
electronic medical records face similar issues (Score:1)
for stuff about that....
http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/index.htm
Awe inspiring implications for posterity (Score:1)
I never expected (Score:1)
a link from /. to submit me to a big ugly Microsoft XP ad. For shame...
Ummm... (Score:4, Funny)
<EMOTIONAL>
<A LITTLE DRUNK>
<PRETTY STONED>
<DANGEROUSLYCRANKY>
<SARCASM>
<SNEER>
This isajoke,isn'tit?
</SNEER>
</SARCASM>
</DANGEROUSLYCRANKY>
<SUDDENLYCURIOUS>
Whydon'tLiam & Noel Gallagherlookaftertheirown emotionsbeforeworryingabout anyoneelse?
</SUDDENLYCURIOUS>
</PRETTYSTONED>
</A LITTLEDRUNK>
</EMOTIONAL>
<TIRED>
Re:Ummm... (Score:1)
You got them all right though. HMM
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
What I want to know is if you perk up when you close the <tired/> tag.
Hey, it works!
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
Dumb question... (Score:1)
My point is, aren't projects like these the sort of thing XML was made for?
NEVER MIND -- I GOT IT (Score:1)
Geekcode (Score:1)
This sounds just a little bit like the geekcode, although more buzzword compliant.
And yes, I really wanted to post a link, but it seems that the geekcode site [geekcode.com] is missing.
Re:Geekcode (Score:1)
Re:Geekcode (Score:1)
There have actually been a number of revisions since then. The most recent (official) version was 3.12.
I guess no one wants to be a geek anymore :(
Re:Geekcode (Score:1)
neat! (Score:2)
Oh well. now people will be able to display their emotion icons how ever they want, no more of this silly
Re:neat! (Score:1)
HumanML abuse (Score:2, Funny)
Great, I can just imagine the guys now:
"Cor, 'ave a look at the HumanML on that one! I bet she validates as well-formed, eh? Eh? *nudgenudge* I wouldn't mind parsing 'er markup, nah wot I mean?"
A thousand times NO! (Score:2)
Think of Shakespeare! He had way less words to work with than we do now, yet no amount of human markup language can hold a candle to the richness of content presented in his tragedies.
I shudder to think of how the graduating class of every subsequent year is more illiterate than the one before it.
Re:A thousand times NO! (Score:2)
vocabulary, far greater than an average speaker
at any time. We have more words today because of
techno-speak but that has no relation to describing
states of human existence. For that, most nobody
can even come close to Shakespeare in richness of
expression.
Your last line (sig?) is so true. It also happens
to reinforce my point.
Re:A thousand times NO! (Score:1)
In my humble opinion
Re:A thousand times NO! (Score:1)
Besides, Shakey used simple markup too: bad people are ugly, good people are cute.
PS "way FEWER words", and don't split your infinitives. Illiteracy is quite relative sometimes.
Alasdair
oh no, that's going to be HARD (Score:2)
this sounds like it's going to run into some problems. as far as politically correct langauage is concerned, it's going to be hard to come up with a DTD that doesn't offend a particular minority... are we going to have short or fat tags? do we skirt the issue by leaving those out (and making the standard less descriptive)?
Re:oh no, that's going to be HARD (Score:1)
etcetc....
i just want my tag
Re:oh no, that's going to be HARD (Score:1)
<edited/>
<cleansed/>
<prohibited>
<johnRocker/>
</prohibited>
</censored>
Re:oh no, that's going to be HARD (Score:2)
I haven't thought it through properly, but "short" and "fat" don't seem to describe physical characteristics much to me anyway. They're relative terms, because you can't know what short is without having a baseline average height to measure it against.
Maybe you'd have objective attributes or elements like height and waist diameter.
Otherwise it beats me, though.
people with too much time on their hands (Score:1)
SBML (standards body markup language)
FDBML (front door bell markup language)
MSML (markup submission markup language)
PML (penis markup language)? (oh, wait, that's slashdot)
WOTPDML (waste of tax-payers dollars markup language)
I was hoping the one upside to a crappy economy would be the death of all this useless academic research into (ab)uses of XML.
Will the simpletons please stand up (Score:1)
The act of expression is *designed* to be primed with meaning and inference. If you want to distinctly express a feeling, emotion or cultural concern, how you go about it is just as important as the idea itself as far as communication is concerned.
If you choose to mark up your meaning using this non-sensical and fundamentally worthless tag system, you are declaring nothing save that you have a mark-up hammer and your ignorance of the world is your nail.
'He speaks four languages and has nothing of value to say in any of them.'
Nothing to say... (Score:1)
'He speaks four languages and has nothing of value to say in any of them.'
YOU WANT TO BE FAMOUS AND RICH AND HAPPY
BUT YOU'RE TERRIFIED YOU HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER THIS WORLD
NOTHING TO SAY AND NO WAY TO SAY IT
BUT YOU CAN SAY IT IN THREE LANGUAGES
--kmfdm, Dogma (Nicole Blackman)
example geek (Score:1)
<physical>
<head>
<face>
<eyes color="hazel"
<nose nostrels="huge"
<skin freckles="few" type="greasy"
<chin type="protruding"
</face>
<hair color="brown"
<hairline position="receding"
</head>
<torso length="175cm">
<clothes cost="minimal>
<pants type="jeans"
<shirt type="button-down" color="white" sleeves="short"
<belt color="brown"
</clothes>
<bellybutton type="innie"
</torso>
</physical>
<emotional>
<intelligence>152</intelligence>
<religion>emacs</religion>
</emotional>
</human>
Re:example geek (Score:1)
There's been a notation for this for years. (Score:2)
And what about the Geek Code ? :o) (Score:2)
This thing will be to the Geek Code what XML is to DB file format !
Thomas Miconi
HML error (Score:1)
Here is my code:
<HML>
<GEEK/>
<GOODLOOKING/>
<SMART/>
</HML>
Can anyone help me???
Re:HML error (Score:2)
Re:HML error (Score:2)
Upgrade your interpreter, the <GOODLOOKING/> tag should nullify the previous instance of <GEEK/>.
Hey Moderators! (Score:1)
Why the hell is the entirely non-sensical parent modded up? Please don't waste our time by recommending comments that don't make sense b/c the author didn't care enough to get it right the first time (Never mind the extra karma). And by the way, comment 2206763 suffers the same idiotic moderation.
ohoh.. (Score:1)
Nice idea!!! (Score:1)
Think of it as stage directions. I can image a number of quite legitimate uses for such a tool.
They need 2 languages (or refinements) (Score:1)
and
human-female.dtd
while the range of emotions is close, the causes of different emotions are - ehm - quite different. i assume they'll be marking up emotions stemming from a previous state of mind..
speech markup language (Score:1)
Think about that though. How are we going to effectively communicate to the program exactly how we want the voice to sound? What needs to be developed is a speech markup language which takes any and every aspect of speech into account, like tone, volume, inflection. Even if a computer voice sounds perfectly pleasant, it won't sound natural if it doesn't stress the proper words. And sometimes stressing another word isn't necessarily wrong, it just means something else.
It has no future (Score:1)
XML is, but some will disagree, a static representation format unfit to represent dynamic human motions.
psychological traits vary so much that psychologists can't agree on which is what. a standard representation won't solve this at a blink and be widely accepted.
the actual specs has too much covered under them. characterizing every human trait under one specs is ambitious, but also unrealistic. physical, psychological, motion are very different traits, each should be taken on individually.
hmm (Score:1)
<resigned>oh well</resigned>
<face action="puzzled" method="human://savrinor:1337/face.cgi">
<expression type="eyebrow" left="normal" right="raise">
</face>
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me... (Score:1)
I'm sure if someone actually had a use for this, they wouldn't want to wade through some standard to implement it. Standards take forever to hash out. VR programmers are likely to want to extend things beyond what the standards are... And you know where that got Microsoft.
Really, what's next? An XML-based markup language that defines life? (And, no, that's not an XML version of
<life>
<years value='2001'>
<months value='8'>
<days value='23'>
<hours value='0'>
<minutes value='48'>
<seconds value='22'>
I thought LML (Life Markup Language)!
</seconds>
<seconds value='25'>
Maybe this is a waste of time...
</seconds>
</minutes>
</hours>
</days>
</months>
</years>
</life>
Sorry to sound cynical or anything... But converting the world into XML is only going to waste everyone's time in the long-run. It's great for what needs it... But, as the saying goes, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Ethics.... (Score:1)
HumanML Member Looking for Feedback (Score:1)
An open note to Cagle and other spec groupies. (Score:2)
Its like some bizarre movie plot where you'll all die if you stop passing standards and specs.
Look at almost every TR on the W3 site other than XML that starts with X, and you'll find technologies that no one asked for and no one cares about, including your own favorite XSL, which maybe takes the cake as most retarded technology ever devised.
Congrats! you committee-crazy folks are killing XML that same way you killed SGML, with ridiculous over-specification and needless standards. You should all work for the government.
Please respond to this here, I would like to know if you understand how ridiculous people think the XML standards groupies have become.
Alrighty then (Score:2)
How can you standardize the conveyance of culture? Huh? For that matter, what's wrong with using regular language to describe someone? I don't see how a computer could usefully apply this info, except for... mmm... blood type and height and stuff.
Re:Alrighty then (Score:2)
For cultural tags, it would be handy to delimit which nationality you are stereotyping
[/politically correct]
[french]I weeel beee wiz yoo in a meeenoot, monsieur[/french]
[british]Bloody frogs, ignorant of the fact that The Queen's English is the international standard language[/british]
[scots]Dae ye unnèrstaun, spake, or scrieve tha quains inglais?[/scots]
[german]This is NOT funny[/german]
[politically correct]
the AC
Not to be pedantic... (Score:1)
Re:Not to be pedantic... (Score:1)
What I meant to say was:
Not to be pedantic, but its <smirk/> not just <smirk> cause its malformed
Bean me up Scotty! (Score:1)
First "convert" all your crews into well formed HML, then armed with a fully validating HML parser/transporter there is no chance of beaming up those all those shapeshifters, evil twins, etc by mistake all the time
Oops... (Score:1)
<hang_head_in_shame>
I18n? (Score:1)
MadEagle
Pointless (Score:2)
XML is a great FILE FORMAT that can be used to exchange hierchical information. Yes, I'm sorry to all the disallusioned out there, XML is ONLY A FILE FORMAT. It's not a programming language. And don't give me the argument that it's "eXtensible Markup LANGUAGE". There's still no "PROGRAMMING" keyword in there.
So unless you're a congressman gunning for re-election and the major issue is accessibility for the disabled, the standard acronyms and emoticons that have been used for about a decade are fine. Hell, even my parents use LOL and
Can you imagine porn sites ? (Score:5, Funny)
<sylvia>
<brain></brain>
<hole>*</hole>
<hole>*</hole>
<hole>*</hole>
</sylvia>
It'd be so boring !
Needs To Tie In With HAnim and X3d (Score:2)
This ought to be tied in with H-Anim [h-anim.org] and X3d [web3d.org].
Otherwise, the will be re-inventing the wheel and conflicting with existing standards.
Good luck to them. (Score:2)
I think the most interesting use of this would be in research psychology. There's been a movement to come up with a good descriptive model for personality for some time now. There's some giant obstacles to overcome, though.
First of all, the study of personality and human behavior is incredibly young. Freud got the ball rolling little more than a century ago, and he set us off on the wrong foot. Like any new science, we're still at the "darts at a dartboard" exploratory stage. It's really hard to come up with a universal descriptive model when we're still drowning in the data.
Secondly, what (human) language are they going to base this on? Language is culture, and different languages describe the world (and people) in very different ways. We might come up with a descriptive markup that works very well when applied to Americans in American society but totally breaks down in Japan. How are they going to make sure that it's broad enough to be global without being so vague that it's useless?
I wish them well, though. Psychology has been badly in need of something like this for a long time, and even if version 1.0 sucks it gives us something to build off of.
How about text-to-speech? (Score:2)
After all, there's a difference between...
...that no text-to-speech program would be able to figure out without some hints.
<sincere>That's a great idea</sincere>
...and...
<sarcastic>That's a great idea</sarcastic>
Not to mention all the different ways to say "Dude".
Psychological Markup Language? =8^P (Score:2)
The Ghost of Artificial Intelligence (Score:2)
And if this is just a bunch of programmers with no input from psychologists, anthropologists, etc., it's simply doomed to be obvious, groundless, and thus useless.
Re:SlashCode... (Score:2)
replies on emails asking why you never get
moderation points, even when you have indicated
to be willing to moderate, and questions about
it on this board get modded down... How
ARE you supposed to find out what's wrong?
RTFM! (Score:1)
You might consider reading the moderator guidelines [slashdot.org], which explain in detail how moderators are selected.
doesn't validate (Score:1)
<name="Anonymous Coward"
<weight="1e30"
<height="1e30"
</hml>
that's better. aaaaaaaaaaah.