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

[EMOXG] XML suggestions for Core 3, Core 4, Core 5, Core 7 (scale values)

From: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:38:01 +0200
Message-ID: <48903679.7050703@dfki.de>
To: EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>

(I am sending this directly to the public list so that people have a 
chance to see this; it has not yet been discussed in the small group. 
The idea is to get initial ideas about all requirements up on the table 
quickly, and then to go through them over the next weeks and months, by 
emails in the small group and in phone meetings)

This is a discussion and suggestion for possible realisations of the 
EmotionML requirements [1] Core 3, Core 4, Core 5, and Core 7, which 
have in common that they rely on scale values.

This is in response to the action item [2] agreed during the last phone 

As agreed, the syntax is inspired by the provisional consensus example 
for Core 2 (Emotion Category):

     <category set="everyday" name="pleasure" confidence "0.9"/>

Generic proposal regarding scale values

The issue of how to describe scale values was already discussed to some 
extent in an email thread initiated by Bill [3]. Attempting a summary of 
the discussion, it would appear that:

* scales are either unipolar (from "not" to "a lot") or bipolar (from 
"very negative" via "neutral" to "very positive");
* some use cases (reasoning, generation) usually describe the position 
on a scale using continuous values;
* other use cases (manual labelling) usually use discrete, ordinal 
values to describe the position on a scale;
* there are psychological reasons why it is not valid to map ordinal 
values onto a numerical scale;
* however, interoperability considerations will sometimes *require* a 
mapping between ordinal and numerical scales;
* for numerical scales, interoperability considerations push towards a 
pre-defined range such as [0,1] or [-1,1];
* exaggerations (e.g., cartoon-like expressions in generation) may push 
towards values beyond the limits of that range.

The following issues were also introduced in the discussion but seem not 
to find consensus support:
- qualifications of scale values relative to a person ("a low amount of 
anger for a New Yorker")
- allowing for units ("3 felicitons") that may possibly be defined in 
the future;
- flexibility of numerical ranges in view of user-specific needs (was 
contradicted on the basis of interoperability).

Based on these constraints it seems reasonable to propose:

a) numerical scales with a pre-defined range ([0,1] for unipolar, [-1,1] 
for bipolar scales) which, however, should sometimes not be strictly 

b) a pre-defined set of discrete values with ordinal ordering, e.g. as 
seven points:

   i) for unipolar scales:
   		not at all
   		very little
   		very much
   		as much as possible

   ii) for bipolar scales:
   		very negative
   		slightly negative
   		slightly positive
   		very positive

Note that I am not attached to the number nor the names of values; I 
have chosen them ad hoc -- if someone has a well-founded alternative, 
please bring it forward.

Users would be free to use only some of these values if they need less 
than seven ordinal points. A mapping may be introduced in the future 
with the currently optional requirement Onto 1 (Mapping...). For the 
moment, users who need a mapping would have to map from ordinal to 
numerical values using the method of their choice.

Concretely, I suggest to realise scales as attribute-value pairs. An 
attribute should be specific about being either a unipolar or a bipolar 
scale. Unipolar scales can hold values that are either a floating point 
number from 0 to 1, or one of the "unipolar" strings listed above, e.g.

<myElement myUnipolarScale="0.234"/>
<myElement myUnipolarScale="very little"/>

Similarly, a bipolar scale could hold values that are either a floating 
point number from -1 to 1, or one of the "bipolar" strings listed above, 
<myElement myBipolarScale="-0.1"/>
<myElement myBipolarScale="slightly negative"/>

Working on this basis, the following proposals for Core 3, 4, 5, and 7 
become rather simple.

Core 3: Emotion dimensions

citing [1]: "... In emotion psychology, a small number of 2-4 emotion 
dimensions is considered to cover the most essential aspects of people's 
emotion concepts and subjective experience. A dimension is a unipolar or 
bipolar continuous scale.
As for emotion categories, it is not possible to predefine a normative 
set of dimensions. Instead, the language should provide a "default" set 
of dimensions, that can be used if there are no specific application 
constraints, but allow the user to "plug in" a custom set of dimensions 
if needed."

A possible syntax similar to the category example could look as follows:

     <dimensions set="FontaineSchererRoeschEllsworth"
                 unpredictability="(unipolar-scale)" />

Here, the value of the "set" attribute would determine the names of the 
attributes that can occur.


     <category set="everyday" name="excited"/>
     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"

Or using verbal scale values:

     <category set="everyday name="excited"/>
     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
                 arousal="very much"
                 valence="slightly positive"/>

This approach groups all dimensions into a single element, which means 
that meta-annotation such as confidence (Meta 1) can only be applied to 
all dimensions at once, as in:

     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
                 arousal="very much"
                 valence="slightly positive"

In other words, with this method we can not express that we are sure the 
guy is very aroused but we are unsure about his valence. If 
meta-information should be annotated on each dimension separately, the 
following more explicit structure would be more appropriate:

     <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence">
         <arousal value="very much" confidence="0.9"/>
         <valence value="slightly positive" confidence="0.3"/>

Core 4: Appraisals

citing [1]: "... . Appraisal is a core concept in cognitive emotion 
psychology; cognitive emotion theories describe in detail which 
appraisals of "things in the world" lead to which emotions. 
Syntactically, appraisals may be represented as unipolar or bipolar scales."

The proposed solution is exactly the same as for Core 3, i.e.:

     <appraisals set="Scherer"

Or else, to allow for individual meta-annotation:

     <appraisals set="Scherer">
         <novelty value="(unipolar-scale)"/>
         <intrinsic-pleasantness value="(bipolar-scale)"/>
         <goal-conduciveness value="(unipolar-scale)"/>

Core 5: Action tendencies

citing [1]: "The emotion markup must provide a possibility to 
characterise emotions in terms of the action tendencies linked to them.
For example (Frijda, 1986, p. 88, Table 2.1), desire is linked to a 
tendency to approach, fear is linked to a tendency to avoid, etc.
Activation, as defined by Frijda (1986, pp. 90-94), is the readiness to 
act according to a specific action tendency. It is a degree, and should 
be represented by a scale value."

Again, the same approach can be proposed:

     <action-tendencies set="Frijda"
         approach="(unipolar scale)"
         avoidance="(unipolar scale)"
         being-with="(unipolar scale)"

Or with more explicit structure, e.g.:

     <action-tendencies set="Frijda">
         <approach activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
         <avoidance activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
         <being-with activation="(unipolar scale)"/>

Core 7: Emotion intensity

citing [1]: "The emotion markup must provide an emotion attribute to 
represent the intensity of an emotion. The intensity is a unipolar scale."

A typical use of intensity is in combination with a category. However, 
in some emotion models, the emotion's intensity can also be used in 
combination with a position in emotion dimension space. Therefore, 
intensity must be specified independently of category. One possible 
solution is this:

     <intensity value="(unipolar scale)"/>

Making intensity an explicit element makes it possible to add 
meta-information, which would not be possible if intensity was an 
attribute, e.g. of the <emotion> tag itself.

For example, expressing a high confidence that the intensity is low, but 
only a vague idea what kind of emotion it may be:

     <intensity value="0.1" confidence="0.8"/>
     <category set="everyday" name="boredom" confidence="0.1"/>

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/emotion/XGR-requirements/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/07/03-emotion-minutes.html#action06
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-emotion/2008May/0005.html
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
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 Wednesday, 30 July 2008 09:50:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:15 UTC