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

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

From: Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 08:11:31 -0700
Message-Id: <00546178-8EF3-4F01-8290-501569707028@ai.sri.com>
Cc: pelachaud@iut.univ-paris8.fr, ian@emotionai.com, public-xg-emotion@w3.org
To: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>

I just had a comment to add.  See below...

On May 8, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Marc Schroeder wrote:

> Ian, Catherine, all,
> the discussion on action tendencies is interesting. There seems to  
> be agreement that in principle, for a system that is capable of  
> acting (in some way) an emotion model should provide the  
> possibility to specify the action tendencies linked to the emotion.
> At the same time, very few systems implement this today.
> pelachaud@iut.univ-paris8.fr schrieb:
>> should the language we are working on
>> deal solely with current state of the art, or look at the future  
>> and thus
>> embed more information than our current systems can consider?

I vote in favor of enabling our language to have the capacity to  
embed more info than our systems can currently consider.

Doing so will broaden the set of researchers who will want to adopt  
it.  And it will lengthen the time before the language becomes  
obsolete or needs serious revision.  After all, our target -- the  
human mind, psyche, personality, emotion, appraisal, call it what you  
will is vastly more complex and subtle than any of our current  
systems.  If the language to capture the phenomena is unnecessarily  
simple it will be adopted less and/or become outmoded sooner.  If a  
smaller community of researchers adopts it, then the scope of  
interoperability will suffer.

Hope I'm sounding to polemical here.

Well that's my 2 cents.


>> The second approach is of course more interesting. However we should
>> wander how we will validate it.
> In this particular case I think it is relatively simple. Maybe we  
> can agree on a basic way of representing action tendencies, in  
> particular the question: are they categories or scales? -> Maybe  
> scales, specifying how strong the tendency towards the given action  
> is?
> As for categories, dimensions, and appraisals, we could then leave  
> the concrete set of action tendencies to the user; we would only  
> specify some default set. Can anyone advise, maybe the Frijda books  
> contain a limited collection of "typical" kinds of action tendencies?
> If we can agree on the basic representation, then including action  
> tendencies in the spec would not be difficult, so I would be OK to  
> add it in the "mandatory" section.
> What do people think?
> Cheers,
> 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
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 16:35:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:52:15 UTC