- From: Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 18:24:10 -0700
- To: Catherine Pelachaud <pelachaud@iut.univ-paris8.fr>
- Cc: Dylan Evans <evansd66@googlemail.com>, ian@emotionai.com, Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>, Catherine Pelachaud <catherine.pelachaud@inria.fr>, "Burkhardt, Felix" <Felix.Burkhardt@t-systems.com>, Enrico Zovato <enrico.zovato@loquendo.com>, Kostas Karpouzis <kkarpou@softlab.ece.ntua.gr>, Nestor Garay <nestor.garay@ehu.es>, Idoia Zearreta <icearreta001@ikasle.ehu.es>, Christian Peter <Christian.Peter@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>, public-xg-emotion@w3.org
Yes, indeed. A characterization of all emotional bodily expressions would be a vast possibly never ending enterprise! This might be an argument in favor of using Owl. Here is why I say this: Someone out in the vast W3C community probably already has created an owl ontology of facial expressions. The job of our markup language would be simply to enable a way to plug into one of the pre-existing ontologies. (Btw, swoogle, is a search engine that should help you search for such ontologies. See http://swoogle.umbc.edu/). Alternatively, maybe there is a way that XML can plug into such a pre- existing owl ontology? Alternatively, we might carve out a small portion of bodily expression terms and make that a part of our standard? Are there other classes of alternatives? Bill p.s. As a long overdue to do item, I owe the group a response to this question: "How OWL address the challenge problem posed by Marc a few months back." I am hoping to get to this in the next few days. p.p.s. I definitely do not want to be considered an evangelist for OWL. I do know know enough to compare it to the other options, i.e. RDF versus XML. On May 28, 2008, at 4:30 PM, Catherine Pelachaud wrote: > > Hi Dylan, > > The problem of including facial expression into the language is the > exponentiality of things to include: vocal description, emotional > gesture, body quality... The quantity of information to > characterize bodily expressions of emotions can be very vast. > Including them will explode the language! > Best, > > Catherine > > Dylan Evans a écrit : >> Hi Catherine, >> >> The precise details of how to encode, say, a smile or a frown >> could be >> left to a standard like MPEG-4 or FACS. But this would only handle >> human-like facial expressions. It wouldn't handle robot-specific >> expressions such as moving ears, flashing lights, etc. So we could >> have some high-level feature in which people could specify the >> kind of >> expression associated with a given emotion (eg. smile/flash blue >> lights). If this was a humanlike facial expression, the details >> could >> then be handled by MPEG-4 or FACS (which would take "smile" as input >> and transform that into specific facial action units etc.). That's >> assuming we are interested in the generation of facial expressions in >> artificial agents. But we might want to include a facial expression >> feature in EML so that people or computers who are tagging video data >> can say what made them infer a particular emotion category without >> having to go into the details of FACS. >> >> I'm just thinking out loud, but it only struck me today that it >> appears rather inconsistent to include a category for behaviour >> tendency but not for facial expression. Almost all the proposed core >> features deal with what we might call internal aspects of emotion - >> type of emotion, emotion intensity, appraisal etc. If we wanted EML >> to handle just these internal aspects, and let other standards like >> FACS etc handle external aspects, then it is strange to include an >> external aspect like action tendency in the current requirements >> list. >> On the other hand, if we include action tendency in the list, it is >> strange to exclude other external aspects such as facial expression. >> >> Does anyone else feel perplexed by this, or am I on the wrong track? >> >> Dylan >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Catherine Pelachaud >> <pelachaud@iut.univ-paris8.fr> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>>> Expression does now seem odd but again it is very >>>> implementational, what >>>> did we decide on this, my memory is vague? >>>> >>> From what I can recall, it has been decided that any visual and >>> acoustic >>> expression of emotion be specified outside of EMOXG. there exist >>> already >>> some standards, such as MPEG-4, H-anim, or widely used annotation >>> scheme, >>> FACS. In the ECA community there are quite a lot of work to >>> develop a >>> 'standard' representation language for behaviors (and another one >>> for >>> communicative functions). >>> >>> best, >>> Catherine >>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed May 28 2:48 PM , "Dylan Evans" <evansd66@googlemail.com> >>>> sent: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'd be happy to contribute a short discussion of core 5: action >>>> tendencies, unless Bill or Ian wants to do this (it was either >>>> Bill or >>>> Ian who suggested that this be part of the core, I think). There >>>> are >>>> some interesting difficulties with this requirement. One of them >>>> concerns the level at which behaviour should be specified; >>>> another is >>>> the dependency of action tendencies on the effectors available >>>> to the >>>> system, which have huge variation. Another is the distinction >>>> between >>>> action tendencies and expression. For example, is the movement of >>>> wizkid's undefinedheadundefined an action tendency or an >>>> expression? See >>>> >>>> http://www.wizkid.info/en/page12.xml >>>> >>>> Come to think of it, we don't have a category for expressions at >>>> all >>>> in the core requirements. That seems really odd to me now, given >>>> that >>>> we have a category for action tendencies. Some robots express >>>> emotions by means of different coloured lights, while others do >>>> so by >>>> means of moving their ears, for example, so it would be good to >>>> enable >>>> robotic designers the means to register these possibilities in the >>>> EML. >>>> >>>> Dylan >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Marc Schroeder wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> this email goes to all those who have participated in the >>>>> preparation >>>>> and >>>>> discussion of the prioritised requirements document [1]. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> undefined I think it would be nice to write a short paper on the >>>> progress >>>> we have made >>>> undefined in the EMOXG, for the workshop undefinedEmotion and >>>> Computingundefined [2] at the KI2008 >>>> >>>>> conference. That is a small workshop aimed at promoting >>>>> discussion, so >>>>> bringing in our "2 cents" seems worthwhile. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> undefined Deadline is 6 June; target length is 4-8 pages in >>>> Springer LNCS >>>> format, i.e. >>>> >>>>> not much space. Tentative title: >>>>> >>>>> "What is most important for an Emotion Markup Language?" >>>>> >>>>> The idea would be to report on the result of our priority >>>>> discussions. A >>>>> main section could describe the mandatory requirements in some >>>>> detail >>>>> and >>>>> the optional ones in less detail; a shorter discussion section >>>>> could >>>>> point >>>>> out some of the issues that were raised on the mailing list >>>>> (scales, >>>>> intention for state-of-the-art or beyond). >>>>> >>>>> Who would be willing to help write the paper? Please also >>>>> suggest which >>>>> section you could contribute to. Active participation would be a >>>>> precondition for being listed as an author, and we should try >>>>> to find an >>>>> order of authorship that fairly represents the amount of >>>>> participation >>>>> (in >>>>> the previous discussion and in paper writing). >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> Marc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> undefined [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR- >>>> requirements >>>> undefined [2] http://www.emotion-and-computing.de/ >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> undefined Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH >>>> undefined Coordinator EU FP7 Project SEMAINE http://www.semaine- >>>> project.eu >>>> undefined Chair W3C Emotion ML Incubator >>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion >>>> undefined Portal Editor http://emotion-research.net >>>> undefined Team Leader DFKI Speech Group http://mary.dfki.de >>>> undefined Project Leader DFG project PAVOQUE http://mary.dfki.de/ >>>> pavoque >>>> undefined Homepage: http://www.dfki.de/~schroed >>>> undefined Email: schroed@dfki.de >>>> >>>>> Phone: +49-681-302-5303 >>>>> >>>> undefined Postal address: DFKI GmbH, Campus D3_2, >>>> Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, >>>> D-66123 >>>> undefined Saarbrücken, Germany >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>> undefined Official DFKI coordinates: >>>> undefined Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche >>>> Intelligenz GmbH >>>> undefined Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany >>>> undefined Geschaeftsfuehrung: >>>> undefined Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) >>>> undefined Dr. Walter Olthoff >>>> undefined Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. >>>> Aukes >>>> undefined Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> Dr. Dylan Evans >>>> Senior Research Scientist >>>> Cork Constraint Computation Centre (4C) >>>> University College Cork, >>>> Cork, Ireland. >>>> >>>> Tel: +353-(0)21-4255408 >>>> Fax: +353-(0)21-4255424 >>>> Email: d.evans@4c.ucc.ie >>>> Web: http://4c.ucc.ie >>>> http://www.dylan.org.uk >>>> -------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> ------- >>>> Sent from Orgoo.com <http://www.orgoo.com/Home?referrer=1> - Your >>>> communications cockpit! >>>> >> >> >> >>
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 01:33:10 UTC