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

Re: [EMOXG] XML suggestions for Core 3, Core 4, Core 5, Core 7 (scale values)

From: Christian Peter <Christian.Peter@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:00:36 +0200
Message-ID: <48917124.3090004@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>
To: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>
Cc: EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>
Hi all,

I'd like to share my thoughts on this as well.

Basically I pretty much support Marc's ideas and his suggestions 
correspond well with my thoughts.

I am happy with the definitions of uni- and bipolar scales for both, 
the numeric as well as the nominal usage.

For Core 3 - dimensions,
I think the advantage of the very last version (the more explicite 
one) is that it can more easily be expanded. For instance, if 
someone decides to add a 'unit' entry to valence lateron, or any 
other additional information, it can be done here without big pain 
(unit="feliciton"), but would be difficult in the single-element 
version. The confidence issue is also an argument for the explicit 
approach.
The single element, however, has the advantage of being easier to read.
Anyway, if I had to decide right now I would suggest going for the 
explicit version to be more open for extensions.

For Core 4 - Appraisals,
I think the same applies here.

For Core 7 - Intensity,
the same. Your last example is very good!

Christian

Marc Schroeder schrieb:
> 
> (I am sending this directly to the public list so that people have a 
> chance to see this; it has not yet been discussed in the small group. 
> The idea is to get initial ideas about all requirements up on the table 
> quickly, and then to go through them over the next weeks and months, by 
> emails in the small group and in phone meetings)
> 
> 
> This is a discussion and suggestion for possible realisations of the 
> EmotionML requirements [1] Core 3, Core 4, Core 5, and Core 7, which 
> have in common that they rely on scale values.
> 
> This is in response to the action item [2] agreed during the last phone 
> conference.
> 
> As agreed, the syntax is inspired by the provisional consensus example 
> for Core 2 (Emotion Category):
> 
> <emotion>
>     <category set="everyday" name="pleasure" confidence "0.9"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> Generic proposal regarding scale values
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> The issue of how to describe scale values was already discussed to some 
> extent in an email thread initiated by Bill [3]. Attempting a summary of 
> the discussion, it would appear that:
> 
> * scales are either unipolar (from "not" to "a lot") or bipolar (from 
> "very negative" via "neutral" to "very positive");
> * some use cases (reasoning, generation) usually describe the position 
> on a scale using continuous values;
> * other use cases (manual labelling) usually use discrete, ordinal 
> values to describe the position on a scale;
> * there are psychological reasons why it is not valid to map ordinal 
> values onto a numerical scale;
> * however, interoperability considerations will sometimes *require* a 
> mapping between ordinal and numerical scales;
> * for numerical scales, interoperability considerations push towards a 
> pre-defined range such as [0,1] or [-1,1];
> * exaggerations (e.g., cartoon-like expressions in generation) may push 
> towards values beyond the limits of that range.
> 
> The following issues were also introduced in the discussion but seem not 
> to find consensus support:
> - qualifications of scale values relative to a person ("a low amount of 
> anger for a New Yorker")
> - allowing for units ("3 felicitons") that may possibly be defined in 
> the future;
> - flexibility of numerical ranges in view of user-specific needs (was 
> contradicted on the basis of interoperability).
> 
> 
> Based on these constraints it seems reasonable to propose:
> 
> a) numerical scales with a pre-defined range ([0,1] for unipolar, [-1,1] 
> for bipolar scales) which, however, should sometimes not be strictly 
> enforced;
> 
> b) a pre-defined set of discrete values with ordinal ordering, e.g. as 
> seven points:
> 
>   i) for unipolar scales:
>           not at all
>           very little
>           little
>           medium
>           much
>           very much
>           as much as possible
> 
>   ii) for bipolar scales:
>           very negative
>           negative
>           slightly negative
>           neutral
>           slightly positive
>           positive
>           very positive
> 
> Note that I am not attached to the number nor the names of values; I 
> have chosen them ad hoc -- if someone has a well-founded alternative, 
> please bring it forward.
> 
> Users would be free to use only some of these values if they need less 
> than seven ordinal points. A mapping may be introduced in the future 
> with the currently optional requirement Onto 1 (Mapping...). For the 
> moment, users who need a mapping would have to map from ordinal to 
> numerical values using the method of their choice.
> 
> 
> Concretely, I suggest to realise scales as attribute-value pairs. An 
> attribute should be specific about being either a unipolar or a bipolar 
> scale. Unipolar scales can hold values that are either a floating point 
> number from 0 to 1, or one of the "unipolar" strings listed above, e.g.
> 
> <myElement myUnipolarScale="0.234"/>
> <myElement myUnipolarScale="very little"/>
> 
> Similarly, a bipolar scale could hold values that are either a floating 
> point number from -1 to 1, or one of the "bipolar" strings listed above, 
> e.g.:
> <myElement myBipolarScale="-0.1"/>
> <myElement myBipolarScale="slightly negative"/>
> 
> 
> Working on this basis, the following proposals for Core 3, 4, 5, and 7 
> become rather simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Core 3: Emotion dimensions
> --------------------------
> 
> citing [1]: "... In emotion psychology, a small number of 2-4 emotion 
> dimensions is considered to cover the most essential aspects of people's 
> emotion concepts and subjective experience. A dimension is a unipolar or 
> bipolar continuous scale.
> As for emotion categories, it is not possible to predefine a normative 
> set of dimensions. Instead, the language should provide a "default" set 
> of dimensions, that can be used if there are no specific application 
> constraints, but allow the user to "plug in" a custom set of dimensions 
> if needed."
> 
> 
> A possible syntax similar to the category example could look as follows:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <dimensions set="FontaineSchererRoeschEllsworth"
>                 valence="(bipolar-scale)"
>                 potency="(unipolar-scale)"
>                 arousal="(unipolar-scale)"
>                 unpredictability="(unipolar-scale)" />
> </emotion>
> 
> Here, the value of the "set" attribute would determine the names of the 
> attributes that can occur.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <category set="everyday" name="excited"/>
>     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
>                 arousal="0.9"
>                 valence="0.2"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> Or using verbal scale values:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <category set="everyday name="excited"/>
>     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
>                 arousal="very much"
>                 valence="slightly positive"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> This approach groups all dimensions into a single element, which means 
> that meta-annotation such as confidence (Meta 1) can only be applied to 
> all dimensions at once, as in:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
>                 arousal="very much"
>                 valence="slightly positive"
>                 confidence="0.5"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> In other words, with this method we can not express that we are sure the 
> guy is very aroused but we are unsure about his valence. If 
> meta-information should be annotated on each dimension separately, the 
> following more explicit structure would be more appropriate:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence">
>         <arousal value="very much" confidence="0.9"/>
>         <valence value="slightly positive" confidence="0.3"/>
>     </dimensions>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> Core 4: Appraisals
> ------------------
> 
> citing [1]: "... . Appraisal is a core concept in cognitive emotion 
> psychology; cognitive emotion theories describe in detail which 
> appraisals of "things in the world" lead to which emotions. 
> Syntactically, appraisals may be represented as unipolar or bipolar 
> scales."
> 
> 
> The proposed solution is exactly the same as for Core 3, i.e.:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <appraisals set="Scherer"
>                 novelty="(unipolar-scale)"
>                 intrinsic-pleasantness="(bipolar-scale)"
>                 ...
>                 goal-conduciveness="(unipolar-scale)"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> Or else, to allow for individual meta-annotation:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <appraisals set="Scherer">
>         <novelty value="(unipolar-scale)"/>
>         <intrinsic-pleasantness value="(bipolar-scale)"/>
>                 ...
>         <goal-conduciveness value="(unipolar-scale)"/>
>      </appraisals>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> Core 5: Action tendencies
> -------------------------
> 
> citing [1]: "The emotion markup must provide a possibility to 
> characterise emotions in terms of the action tendencies linked to them.
> For example (Frijda, 1986, p. 88, Table 2.1), desire is linked to a 
> tendency to approach, fear is linked to a tendency to avoid, etc.
> Activation, as defined by Frijda (1986, pp. 90-94), is the readiness to 
> act according to a specific action tendency. It is a degree, and should 
> be represented by a scale value."
> 
> Again, the same approach can be proposed:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <action-tendencies set="Frijda"
>         approach="(unipolar scale)"
>         avoidance="(unipolar scale)"
>         being-with="(unipolar scale)"
>         ...
>         />
> </emotion>
> 
> Or with more explicit structure, e.g.:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <action-tendencies set="Frijda">
>         <approach activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
>         <avoidance activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
>         <being-with activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
>         ...
>     </action-tendencies>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> Core 7: Emotion intensity
> -------------------------
> 
> citing [1]: "The emotion markup must provide an emotion attribute to 
> represent the intensity of an emotion. The intensity is a unipolar scale."
> 
> A typical use of intensity is in combination with a category. However, 
> in some emotion models, the emotion's intensity can also be used in 
> combination with a position in emotion dimension space. Therefore, 
> intensity must be specified independently of category. One possible 
> solution is this:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <intensity value="(unipolar scale)"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> Making intensity an explicit element makes it possible to add 
> meta-information, which would not be possible if intensity was an 
> attribute, e.g. of the <emotion> tag itself.
> 
> For example, expressing a high confidence that the intensity is low, but 
> only a vague idea what kind of emotion it may be:
> 
> <emotion>
>     <intensity value="0.1" confidence="0.8"/>
>     <category set="everyday" name="boredom" confidence="0.1"/>
> </emotion>
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-requirements/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-emotion-minutes.html#action06
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-emotion/2008May/0005.html

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Peter
Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Rostock
Usability and Assistive Technologies
Joachim-Jungius-Str. 11, 18059 Rostock, Germany
Phone: +49 381 4024-122, Fax: +49 381 4024-199
email: christian.peter@igd-r.fraunhofer.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with the electronic signature? Please load the current root
certificate of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft into your browser!
(http://pki.fraunhofer.de/EN/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 



Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 08:01:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 July 2008 08:01:19 GMT