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

Re: [EMOXG] Deliverable report published as first draft: Emotion Markup Language: Requirements with Priorities

From: Christian Peter <Christian.Peter@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 13:26:57 +0200
Message-ID: <48219201.2060909@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>
To: Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM>
Cc: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>, EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>
Hi Bill (and all),

thanks for making these points. The [0,1] approach is the 
technically most practical and most obvious, which probably is the 
reason nobody else stumbled over the applicability issues raised by you.

I think I do agree with you that [0,1] is not sufficient to properly 
specify an emotion's intensity. At least it might not be feasable 
for some use cases for reasons provided by you.

Your class-based approach sounds very attractive to me. Actually {0, 
..., 1} are possible classes which would allow easy mapping to the 
[0,1] standard representations used for other attributes. But other 
classes (low, medium, high ...) are also imaginable which would need 
to be specified, probably along with information on how to map them 
to [0,1] scales.

Specification of the classes used (and mapping rules) would need to 
be done as meta information then, which means that we would need to 
add it to section 2.2: Meta-information about emotion annotation I 
guess?

What do others think?

Christian

--
Bill Jarrold schrieb:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Thanks for putting this together.  Looks great.  I have just a few 
> comments.  Although there have been other discussion of your draft in 
> recent days, that discussion seems unrelated to my comments so, rather 
> than replying to them, I am replying directly to your message.
> 
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 2:33 AM, Marc Schroeder wrote:
> 
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> the last few weeks have shown little visible activity in this group, 
>> but Felix Burkhardt and I have been working on the requirements 
>> document that is intended to reflect the outcomes of our discussions 
>> during the last few months, regarding mandatory vs. optional 
>> requirements for an emotion markup language.
>>
>> So here it is, as a first draft, for you to comment upon:
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-requirements-20080429/
>>
>> I kindly request that any comments to this document should be sent to 
>> this list. I suggest that we allow for
>>
>>     two weeks, i.e. until 13 May 2008
>>
>> time for commenting on this draft. Comments expressed during this time 
>> can be discussed and, if agreement can be reached, will be taken on 
>> board. If no objections from group members are raised, the report will 
>> be considered final by the above date.
> 
> My comments have to do with requirement for expressing amounts.  These 
> comments apply to Core 6 and Core 8.
> 
> Core 6 says "The emotion markup must provide an emotion attribute to 
> represent the intensity of an emotion.  The intensity is a dimension 
> with values in [0,1]"
> 
> Core 8 says "The emotion markup shuld provide emotion attributes to 
> represent the various kinds of regulation.  The value of these 
> attributes should be in [0,1]."
> 
> I consider a value range of [0,1] to be a unitless value range.
> 
> This is good.  But I think we want to give annotators more options for 
> these values than just [0,1].
> 
> One reason that merely [0,1] may not be enough is this: Is it really 
> true that there is a maximum amount of a particular emotion?  A maximal 
> amount of experiencable joy?  How depressing ! (-:  Having a fixed max 
> or min seems to be taking a theoretical stand that might be quite valid 
> for some theories but not all theories.
> 
> Okay, so, the basic idea is that we should allow additional means to 
> express intensity. In particular we should allow [a] qualitative values 
> [b] qualitative values relative to a particular class [c] a partial 
> ordering of values [d] unit based values.
> 
> Do we need [a] AND [b] AND [c] AND [d]?  I don't know.  Lets consider 
> each one as a separate amendment.  Maybe we'll want just [a] but not 
> [b], [c], or [d].  Let's discuss which if any of these additions we want.
> 
> I will now describe each of [a], [b], [c] and [d] and try to provide an 
> evocative use case (expressed in English)
> 
> [a] Qualitative Values
> 
> In a mushy area sometimes all we can assert are values like high, medium 
> or low.  E.g.  "Fred felt a lot of anger."  How much is a lot?  .7, .8, 
> .9?  The value can be quite arbitrary.  Thus we want a set of 
> qualitative values such as "high", "medium", "low", "very high", "very 
> low" etc......[Sure, a given researcher should be able map high to .9 or 
> 0.77 if he decides to later on down the road in his/her markup 
> activity.  So, there would also need to be vocab to optionally map such 
> vocab to actual numbers.]
> 
> [b] qualitative values relative to a particular class
> 
> This is basically [a] except you can relativize the qualitative value
> to a particular class.  E.g.
> 
> "Fred felt a low amount of anger for a New Yorker"
> 
> "Joe felt a low amount of love for a California Hippie During the
> Summer of Love"
> 
> "Subject24601 expressed a medium amount of surprise for Sample Set 35
> As Rated by Graduate Student Joe"
> 
> We would do this kind of thing (i.e. [a] or [b]) all the time with a 
> knowledge rep /
> ontology system such as Cyc or the Knowledge Machine (and the
> Component Library associated with it) [references happily furnished if
> you ask].  For example the express the concept that "Fred is short for
> a basketball player and tall for a pigmy." (We'll really we'd say that
> the value of the height property for Fred was Low with respect to the
> class Basketball Player but High for the class Pigmy".  It stands to 
> reason that if this kind of scheme has been developed for these projects 
> for quantities like height we should also do it for emotion.
> 
> [Of course, the user of Cyc or KM can specify stuff like "Short for a 
> Basketball Player is 5 feet 9 inches." as well]
> 
> [c] a partial ordering of values
> 
> The idea here is we want to handle cases where we do not wish to nail
> down any particular value for an emotion intensity but do wish to say
> that one value is greater or less than another.
> 
> E.g. "The level of Fred's happiness today is higher than it was
> yesterday."
> 
> [d] unit based values.
> 
> I don't know of any scheme for quantifying emotion intensity on some
> sort of scale.  However, we should allow (and encourage) researchers
> who have devised such a scale to use use it.  This scheme would allow
> the annotator to associate a value with a particular set of units of 
> his/her
> chosing."
> 
> E.g. "Using his new instrument, Joe the Scientist measured Fred's
> happiness as 75 felicitons."
> 
>  "Using her new instrument, Sally the Scientist measured Fred'shappiness
> as 3.2 kilofelicitons."
> 
>  "Using her new instrument, Jing the Scientist measured Fran's pride as 
> -1.98 shameitrons."
> 
> Well, the examples might sound a little silly, but hopefully they 
> illustrate the need for what
> I am making the case for.  We can make the examples more sober and 
> scientifically plausible in
> due course as necessary.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Bill
> 
>>
>>
>> This document gives us a pretty concrete starting point for thinking 
>> about syntax now. I believe we should come to a conclusion about which 
>> format to use (XML vs. RDF vs. OWL) in May, and start drafting a 
>> syntax specification from June onwards.
>>
>> Does this sound reasonable? Let's get back to work! :-)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH
>> Coordinator EU FP7 Project SEMAINE http://www.semaine-project.eu
>> Chair W3C Emotion ML Incubator 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Peter
Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Rostock
Human-Centered Interaction 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 Wednesday, 7 May 2008 11:28:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 May 2008 11:28:02 GMT