W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-emotion@w3.org > December 2006

Re: [EMOXG] Use Case 3 Requirements Analysis

From: Marc Schröder <schroed@dfki.de>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 13:41:30 +0100
Message-ID: <457AAEFA.8060204@dfki.de>
To: public-xg-emotion@w3.org

(discussant's hat)
Hi all,

I have been thinking about the issue of input and output.

Let me rephrase the question: Should there be mechanisms to describe the 
relation between the emotional annotation and the "outside world" -- to 
the events/objects that caused the emotion? To the expressive behaviour 
(e.g., sensor data) from which the emotional annotation was inferred? To 
the expressive or behavioural results of the emotion?

I agree that we need such mechanisms. Without a way to relate an 
emotional state to meaningful "things" in the "world" (e.g., application 
domain), we would have a relatively useless specification indeed.

Instead of quickly deciding that "input" and "output" are the right 
things to model, though, I would suggest to take a step back and 
consider which kinds of relations exist between an emotional (or 
related) state and the rest of the world. I can think of the following.

1. experiencer. Who experiences the emotion?
2. cause/trigger/object. Which event, object, etc., perceived by the 
experiencer, leads to the emotion? In this context, the notion of 
"appraisal" is central: the perception of the event is not direct, but 
filtered (appraised) through a set of beliefs, values, etc. in the 
experiencer's mind.
3. observable correlates (physiological changes/actions/expression). 
Which observable or measurable changes in the experiencer's physiology, 
behaviour and/or expressivity in various modalities accompany the emotion?

(One could add concepts such as "subjective feeling" and "action 
tendencies", known to be components of emotions in psychological theory. 
I leave these out for the moment because they will usually not be 

Starting in this way from the emotion phenomenon rather than the use 
case scenario leads to an interesting observation. In this conception, 
the "observable correlates" correspond to what in UC2 would be 
considered system "input", but in UC3 would be generated as system "output".

To summarise, I suggest that:

* we need suitable links between the emotion annotation and the "rest of 
the world";
* these links should be conceptualised in relation to the emotion 
phenomenon, e.g. as (1) experiencer, (2) cause and (3) observable 

Looking forward to the discussion on Monday, best wishes,

Zovato Enrico schrieb:
> Dear Jan and all,
> Question: Should the Emotion Language include a generic mechanism/parameters for
> input and output?
> I think so. The challenge will be to use these generic items to describe something that depends on the (different) applications that are related to inputs and outputs.
> I think we'll have an interesting discussion...
> Best,
> Enrico
> Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.
> ================================================
> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to <mailto:webmaster@telecomitalia.it>webmaster@telecomitalia.it. Thank you<http://www.loquendo.com>www.loquendo.com
> ================================================

Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher
DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
"If you are happy, you are functioning well."
Received on Saturday, 9 December 2006 12:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:14 UTC