W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-emotion@w3.org > January 2008

Re: draft RE my action item (was Re: Agenda for phone meeting 31 January 2008)

From: Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:49:54 -0800
Message-Id: <E0DD6E9F-0343-4F09-BC06-1E72CE7CBFA6@ai.sri.com>
Cc: EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>
To: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>
I attach here a file that captures a fair bit of my diagram.

Hope it helps,


On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:23 AM, Marc Schroeder wrote:

> Bill,
> I agree with Ian that the current exercise, from my point of view,  
> was about getting a "feel" of the "syntax" associated with various  
> representations, not about immediately designing a "meaningful"  
> structure within any given framework. The various ad hoc choices in  
> the other examples illustrate that, and raise interesting questions  
> worth discussion.
> On the other hand, you are asking very interesting and relevant  
> questions, so let me briefly reply.
> Bill Jarrold schrieb:
>> How in the world will we deal with all these differences of opinion?
>> With changes in the field as affective science evolves....The key to
>> me seems to be to (a) allow people to continue to debate what is the
>> correct taxoomony and yet (b) still let people who need to use some
>> term set at least make some headway and leverage *something* without
>> having to wait for the people in (a) to reach conssensus.
> Exactly. So even though there is no chance to have a unified  
> emotion theory any time soon, there is *some* consensus among  
> *some* people, and we should provide a flexible mechanism for  
> encoding that, without deciding for a camp ourselves. And if  
> engineers decide they need to build bridges between camps that  
> theorists would never endorse as valid, but for which there is an  
> application need, we should let them. Actually, maybe, just maybe,  
> the experience of what works and what doesn't in practice can  
> inform theory...!
>> Okay, I have provisionally assumed that allowing for multiple
>> taxonomies (or even more complex -- multiple theories) is a  
>> requirement.
> Yes. BUT in order to avoid complete chaos, there should be clearly  
> defined ways of saying that one is "using Ekman's six basic  
> emotions" or "the concept of mood dimensions as in Gebhard 2007" or  
> "the distinction of types of affective states as in Scherer 2000"  
> etc. So the idea is, let them use what they want *if* they make  
> their choices explicit.
> In EARL, we did this using a separate namespace for each  
> configuration of annotations [1] -- not very modular (you could not  
> simply refer in the document itself to the various label sets you  
> were using, but needed to create a new Schema for every specific  
> combination), but OK it was a start.
> [1] http://emotion-research.net/earl/schemadesign#SchemaDialects
>> TECHNICAL QUESTION: Any sense as to what kinds of tools
>> might actually do that markup? Something pre-existing? protege?
>> Something custom created?)
> This is another really good question. We should talk about it. For  
> machine recognition and generation, of course both the generation  
> and the interpretation of the markup will be done by software  
> components; but for manual labelling of data, what would one use? I  
> know that for annotating videos, colleagues in Paris and Belfast  
> are using Anvil [2], but that labelling tool has its own data  
> formats, so getting an Emotion Markup from Anvil may need effort.
> [2] http://www.anvil-software.de/
>> Given the potential ugliness of namespaces perhaps we just need to
>> have everything be in one namespace but use different owl files.
> One important aspect is extensibility: we will not be able to  
> preview all the sets of emotion categories, for example, that our  
> users will want to use in their annotations. Often, these are quite  
> application-specific, so users will want to "plug in" their own  
> label set.
>> At first blush, my approach is to have a representation of that  
>> object
>> that we wish to makup.  Let me consider a specific real world case
>> that I hope is a decent exemplar of Alexander's use case?
>> Specifically I consider the point in Macbeth where Lady M says "Out
>> damn spot!"  How might I go aobut ontologizing this.
>> I will first do this diagramatically to give as easily grokable
>> description.  Then, hopefully, if time, will spell out the owl --
>> which I lament is not very human readable.
>> Now, some diagramatic notation conventions:
>> Slots or relations are have a name that begins with a lowercase
>> character (e.g. annotationTextIs)
>> Individuals (as opposed to classes) have a name that begins with a *
>> followed by an uppercase character, e.g. *Alexander.
>> Primitive Data types (e.g. strings, time instants, numbers, booleans)
>> are put in quotations.
>> *"Out damn spot!"
>> 	^
>> 	|
>> 	annotationTextIs
>> 	|
>> *Annotation24601
>> 	|
>> 	|--- annotationAuthor: *Alexander
>> 	|
>> 	|--- annotationTime: "2008-01-23T13:36"
>> 	|
>> 	|-- annotatedEmotion: *FearInstance35
>> 				|
>> 				|--instanceOf: *DC-2006-Fear
>> 				|
>> 				|--valence: "-0.8"
>> 				|
>> 				|--
>> <sstopping here>
> So if I understand you correctly, this is a stub of a graphical  
> representation of an OWL document containing a concrete emotion  
> annotation. "annotatedEmotion" is where the Emotion Markup really  
> starts, right? The line from *"Out damn spot!" to *Annotation24601  
> is an answer to our requirement 'Links to the "rest of the world":  
> Links to media'.
> I am not very firm in ontological theory, so I am uncertain about  
> the status of *FearInstance35: is this the specific emotion  
> annotated in this case, never to be used again, or is it an  
> "instance" in the sense that it is one particular kind of  
> combination of a categorical label and other annotations?
> Also, the way that you structure it, *FearInstance35 being an  
> "instanceOf" *DC-2006-Fear, doesn't that imply you are giving more  
> fundamental reality to the categorical representation compared to  
> the "valence" dimension (which is not, in the example, derived from  
> any particular theory)?
> So much for now, best regards,
> Marc
> -- 
> Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH
> Coordinator EU FP7 Project SEMAINE
> Chair W3C Emotion Markup Language Incubator Group http://www.w3.org/ 
> 2005/Incubator/emotion
> Portal Editor http://emotion-research.net
> Team Leader DFKI Speech Group http://mary.dfki.de
> Project Leader DFG project PAVOQUE http://mary.dfki.de/pavoque
> Homepage: http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
> Email: schroed@dfki.de
> Phone: +49-681-302-5303
> Postal address: DFKI GmbH, Campus D3_2, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3,  
> D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
> --
> Official DFKI coordinates:
> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
> Geschaeftsfuehrung:
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
> Dr. Walter Olthoff
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313

Received on Thursday, 31 January 2008 06:50:14 UTC

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