- From: Christian Peter <Christian.Peter@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:00:36 +0200
- To: Marc Schroeder <schroed@dfki.de>
- Cc: EMOXG-public <public-xg-emotion@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <48917124.3090004@igd-r.fraunhofer.de>
Hi all,
I'd like to share my thoughts on this as well.
Basically I pretty much support Marc's ideas and his suggestions
correspond well with my thoughts.
I am happy with the definitions of uni- and bipolar scales for both,
the numeric as well as the nominal usage.
For Core 3 - dimensions,
I think the advantage of the very last version (the more explicite
one) is that it can more easily be expanded. For instance, if
someone decides to add a 'unit' entry to valence lateron, or any
other additional information, it can be done here without big pain
(unit="feliciton"), but would be difficult in the single-element
version. The confidence issue is also an argument for the explicit
approach.
The single element, however, has the advantage of being easier to read.
Anyway, if I had to decide right now I would suggest going for the
explicit version to be more open for extensions.
For Core 4 - Appraisals,
I think the same applies here.
For Core 7 - Intensity,
the same. Your last example is very good!
Christian
Marc Schroeder schrieb:
>
> (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
> conference.
>
> As agreed, the syntax is inspired by the provisional consensus example
> for Core 2 (Emotion Category):
>
> <emotion>
> <category set="everyday" name="pleasure" confidence "0.9"/>
> </emotion>
>
>
> 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
> enforced;
>
> 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
> little
> medium
> much
> very much
> as much as possible
>
> ii) for bipolar scales:
> very negative
> negative
> slightly negative
> neutral
> slightly positive
> 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,
> e.g.:
> <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:
>
> <emotion>
> <dimensions set="FontaineSchererRoeschEllsworth"
> valence="(bipolar-scale)"
> potency="(unipolar-scale)"
> arousal="(unipolar-scale)"
> unpredictability="(unipolar-scale)" />
> </emotion>
>
> Here, the value of the "set" attribute would determine the names of the
> attributes that can occur.
>
> Examples:
>
> <emotion>
> <category set="everyday" name="excited"/>
> <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
> arousal="0.9"
> valence="0.2"/>
> </emotion>
>
>
> Or using verbal scale values:
>
> <emotion>
> <category set="everyday name="excited"/>
> <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
> arousal="very much"
> valence="slightly positive"/>
> </emotion>
>
>
> 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:
>
> <emotion>
> <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence"
> arousal="very much"
> valence="slightly positive"
> confidence="0.5"/>
> </emotion>
>
> 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:
>
> <emotion>
> <dimensions set="Arousal-and-Valence">
> <arousal value="very much" confidence="0.9"/>
> <valence value="slightly positive" confidence="0.3"/>
> </dimensions>
> </emotion>
>
>
> 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.:
>
> <emotion>
> <appraisals set="Scherer"
> novelty="(unipolar-scale)"
> intrinsic-pleasantness="(bipolar-scale)"
> ...
> goal-conduciveness="(unipolar-scale)"/>
> </emotion>
>
> Or else, to allow for individual meta-annotation:
>
> <emotion>
> <appraisals set="Scherer">
> <novelty value="(unipolar-scale)"/>
> <intrinsic-pleasantness value="(bipolar-scale)"/>
> ...
> <goal-conduciveness value="(unipolar-scale)"/>
> </appraisals>
> </emotion>
>
>
> 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:
>
> <emotion>
> <action-tendencies set="Frijda"
> approach="(unipolar scale)"
> avoidance="(unipolar scale)"
> being-with="(unipolar scale)"
> ...
> />
> </emotion>
>
> Or with more explicit structure, e.g.:
>
> <emotion>
> <action-tendencies set="Frijda">
> <approach activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
> <avoidance activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
> <being-with activation="(unipolar scale)"/>
> ...
> </action-tendencies>
> </emotion>
>
>
> 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:
>
> <emotion>
> <intensity value="(unipolar scale)"/>
> </emotion>
>
> 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:
>
> <emotion>
> <intensity value="0.1" confidence="0.8"/>
> <category set="everyday" name="boredom" confidence="0.1"/>
> </emotion>
>
>
> [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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Peter
Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics Rostock
Usability and Assistive Technologies
Joachim-Jungius-Str. 11, 18059 Rostock, Germany
Phone: +49 381 4024-122, Fax: +49 381 4024-199
email: christian.peter@igd-r.fraunhofer.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems with the electronic signature? Please load the current root
certificate of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft into your browser!
(http://pki.fraunhofer.de/EN/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 08:01:18 UTC