[emotionml] ISSUE-72: Does it make sense to state the intensity of an emotion but not its nature? from Васил Рангелов on 2010-08-08 (www-multimodal@w3.org from August 2010)

From: Васил Рангелов <boen.robot@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:48:45 +0300
To: <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4c5f182e.4507df0a.019b.4cad@mx.google.com>

Hi... Multimodal Interaction Working Group!

Among the notes of the latest EmotionML draft, you have
"ISSUE-72: should <intensity> be included in this list? Does it make sense to state the intensity of an emotion but not its nature?"

I'd like to express my non-implementer point of view on this - it completely does NOT make sense to me to express an emotion intensity without its nature. In fact, it doesn't make sense to describe anything about an emotion without having a nature for it (which, as far as I can see, is described by the "name" attribute of <emotion>'s child elements). Just think about the sentence "I'm very.". Makes no sense, right? "I've long been." doesn't make sense either. Add anything that's considered an emotion, and it does. Like "I'm very excited.", "I've long been sad.", etc.

Regards,
Vasil Rangelov

Received on Sunday, 8 August 2010 20:49:21 UTC