See also: IRC
log
Present
Catherine, Felix,
Enrico, Dylan, Marc
Regrets
Ian, Bill, Bjoern, Paolo
Chair
marc
Scribe
catherine
There was clear agreement among the participants that we would like to continue working as a subgroup of the MMI working group. Dates of next meeting were agreed. Basic approach proposed for dealing with scale values was agreed, but some questions regarding discrete scales are left open.
Marc explains the
3 possibilites for the future of EMOXG (stop,
continue as its own working group, join the multimodal interaction as a
sub-group)
all
the participants
of today's meeting agree on the 3rd option (join MM interaction as a
sub-group)
Marc will ask
in the mailing
list if there are other opinions on this issue
Phone meetings:
Thursday 4
September, 14:00 UTC
Thursday 18
September, 14:00 UTC
Thursday 2
October, 14:00 UTC
<marc> ask the participants who can come
to the meeting in
<marc> Original suggestions in email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-emotion/2008Jul/0008.html
Marc:presents the
different issues regarding scales specification: numerical and
verbal
Enrico:proposes to restrict the verbal values to 5. Problem of subjectivity arises with using higher number of verbal scales
<marc> unipolar scale:
<marc> +
<marc> ++
<marc> +++
<marc> ++++
<marc> +++++
<cgi-irc> or:
<cgi-irc> 0
<cgi-irc> +
<cgi-irc> ++
<cgi-irc> +++
<cgi-irc> ++++
Some conclusions
were made: we tend to prefer 5 point scales.
Open issue to be
discussed: use abstract scale or linguistic scale.
<marc> XML discussion continued, looking
at concrete suggestions from email:
Core 3:
<marc>
<emotion>
<marc> <dimensions
set="Arousal-and-Valence">
<marc> <arousal value="very much"
confidence="0.9"/>
<marc> <valence value="slightly
positive" confidence="0.3"/>
<marc>
</dimensions>
<marc> </emotion>
(Core 4 similar to Core 3)
Regarding sub-element of Core 3, 4: need to verify the values (eg appraisal dimensions) from a repository
Core 5:
<marc>
<emotion>
<marc> <action-tendencies set="Frijda">
<marc>
<approach activation="(unipolar
scale)"/>
<marc>
<avoidance activation="(unipolar
scale)"/>
<marc>
<being-with activation="(unipolar
scale)"/>
<marc> ...
<marc>
</action-tendencies>
<marc>
</emotion>
Core 5: for
consistency, we should stick to "value" as an attribute name rather than
"activation".
<marc>
<emotion>
<marc>
<intensity value="(unipolar
scale)"/>
<marc>
</emotion>
<marc>
<emotion>
<marc> <intensity value="0.1"
confidence="0.8"/>
<marc> <category set="everyday"
name="boredom" confidence="0.1"/>
<marc>
</emotion>
Core 7: Intensity
should be a separate element rather than an attribute
Confidence (Meta
1):use same type of
scale. Which elements should allow for a "confidence" attribute is left for a
future discussion.
[End of minutes]