Re: &

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Well, I stand corrected. I get the point much better this time.

I think the problem of educating some element in the media that 
doesn't want to do its homework and research adequately deserves some 
careful thought. I don't agree that the name is a misnomer. And I 
oppose changing it at this point. I think responding now to negative 
press is more likely to make us look unnecessarily defensive and 
might serve to reinforce that negative perception. However, I am 
willing to reconsider.

It might be helpful to simply point out that it is far too early for 
any journalist to draw conclusions about our efforts, but attacking 
the presentation of what we consider misperceptions of our effort is 
just answering a negative with another negative.

I think we need to focus on the work we have set out to do. If we 
produce a language that delivers a clear benefit, that will speak for 
itself better than we could. I think it is too early to get in a 
swivet over it, but I could be wrong.

Ciao,
Rex

At 3:12 AM +0100 8/26/01, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>  > The world is flat and bumblebees and men can't fly.
>
>My point was that we don't give a crap about whether or not bumblebees can
>or cannot fly, but are instead interested in something totally different.
>I'm saying that the way that people percieve HumanML is a direct
>consequence of what they've read about it, and if they're slagging it off,
>then whatever they've read about it must have been poorly written, or else
>the people are utter fools. Or both. But you *have* to concede that our PR
>material both past and present has been at best misleading. And that
>doesn't say much about us as a project.
>
>The name "HumanMarkup" is a dangerous misnomer, and that the other points I
>raised about HumanMarkup (way/odd) are something that we need to get people
>to at least get thinking about, somehow.
>
>Saying, "hey, the fact that these people don't understand what we're doing
>is proof that we're doing something good" is, IMO, a pretty weak point
>unless you consider all of the factors behind that statement. For a start,
>if people don't understand what we're doing, then we should educate them.
>If those people are right about some things, then we have to investigate
>that. If people sneer at good and bad projects alike, how can we tell the
>difference? You can't use that fact as proof, you just can't. You can use
>it as a humorous observation because we *are* doing something that's on the
>right track, but you can't use it to state that we are on the right track.
>
>--
>Kindest Regards,
>Sean B. Palmer
>@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
>:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request