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: Catherine Pelachaud <pelachaud@iut.univ-paris8.fr>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 20:14:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4825E5F9.2040104@iut.univ-paris8.fr>
To: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>
CC: Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM>, EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>

Dear Marc and Bill,

> On the other hand, I can absolutely follow Bill's reasoning in favour 
> of qualitative / fuzzy scale labels, both in general and relative to a 
> particular class. I would like to understand better who / which use 
> cases would be using the qualitative labels:
> - automatic recognition?
> - manual annotation?
To my knowledge all the annotation schemes I know use qualitative scale.
> - reasoning?
Often models (eg Gratch and Marsella, Elliott, Ochs) use quantitative 
> - synthesis?
I would say most synthesis models, not to say all, use quantitative values.

My 2 cents on the definition of min, max.
In MPEG-4 facial Animation Parameters have no min-max. Any values are 
allowed. The difficulty is to make sure that all MPEG-4 player 
interprets the values in a similar manner. To ensure this, detailled 
examples are provided as well as animation files that served as test bed.
I also like the idea of not having min-max specified. It allows for much 
more flexibility and also not to have to define what it is absolute max 
of an emotion. However not having such boundaries forces us to define 
ways to match our interpretations of the values.

Marc: I have the impression we are entering really into the language 
description, making it more complex/refined as we discussed it 
previously. I guess this is a very good sign.
How is it possible to reshape the last report?

> Could I have feedback from the group on this -- who would need 
> qualitative labels for their work?
> I am less convinced by the "units", I cannot remember a case at the 
> moment where that was proposed in the literature.
> Best wishes,
> Marc
>> 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
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2008 18:15:03 UTC

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