RE: Case in Point-cultural Module:IslamicFundamentalism?

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

This is certainly true, but how do we get them to even notice us? The
information that is accurate must come from those sources I cited.
That is where I want to take this discussion.

How do we do that? How do we open a dialogue with these folks?

They are not knocking on our doors. They are driving jets into
buidings, killing lots of people and getting our attention THAT way.

We certainly have to design well. But the best design without the
participation of groups from whom we need to gather accurate
information won't help that situation much. Obviously, this idea
extends beyond our parochial interests, so I'm trying to widen the
discussion a bit.

How do we get their attention in a way that serves our goals, and
theirs, at least their goal of being heard?

I won't be back until this evening my time, so I hope to hear from a
number of voices. However, as I wrote last night, I understand our
exhaustion.

Ciao,
Rex

At 9:12 AM -0500 9/14/01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>A way to do that is to design the markup
>and other data modules such that it is apparent
>on inspection what information is to be gathered. 
>Resist the temptation to order the world of
>others.  They have the right to their anarchy
>and we can only provide tools for those with the
>will to be understood to work out an understanding. 
>
>Start with the schemas and the RDF relationships. 
>The issue is interpretation of description that
>is returned by any message.  Emotional connotation
>is part of the message.  One cannot eliminate
>intensionality. 
>
>Len
>http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
>
>Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
>Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 8:38 AM
>To: humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Case in Point-cultural Module:IslamicFundamentalism?
>
>
>The Subject Line here ends in a question mark because what I'm
>attempting to start is a discussion on how we can go about building
>such a culturalModule that is as accurate as possible. There are at
>least three major considerations in this effort that I can recognize
>at the moment.
>
>1. To get accurate information requires at the least more than one
>active member of this broad cultural group, hopefully from more than
>one of the following sub-groups: national, schismatic, and ethnic
>that produce and harbor such humans. That includes but is not limited
>to, Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, Lenbanese, Persians, Balkans, Slavs,
>Greeks Palestinians, Jordanians, Saudis, Yemenis,  Morrocans,
>Algerians, Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians, Iranians, Indians,
>Turkmenistanis, Uzbekhistantis, Azerbaijanis,  Afghanis, Pakhistanis,
>Gulf State nationals and more.
>
>Does anyone believe these humans do NOT want to be heard and
>understood on their own terms?
>
>2. For this, or any,  culturalModule:  we need a way to be perceived
>in our work as being, at the least, without ulterior motives or
>hidden agendas. We need to be perceived as unbiased, as setting our
>standards and goals at absolute unvarnished truth while acknowledging
>that such is not feasible or actually possible in totality.
>
>How our information can be used needs to be understood so that those
>who might be mistrustful understand that what we are doing is
>providing them with a way to be understood correctly, and thus to
>control how THEY are perceived. We need them to understand that this
>gives them a way to have some measure of control over how THEY can be
>used or misused, and how they can use this information to correct
>misuse or abuse or misinformation.
>
>3. We must eliminate emotional connotations from coloring how such a
>culturalModule: is constructed.
>
>No mean feat.


--
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