RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy

[paul <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Manos,

It is by these assumptions and demands on the process that we volunteer for work, on "standards", that ultimately has limited value because it is simply not correct?  It is not correct in any sense, what so ever.  It is not worth spending any time on , volunteer or not.

Have we not seen this behavior before (from a minority of individuals who will not release us to work on first principles, and who create the illusion that a standards process of the type suggested by Manos is at all reasonable?)

I have argued over and over that there is a class of behaviors exhibited in the standards processes that simply inhibit the development of proper work.  Why is volunteer work necessarily have to be of some lower quality than "other types of work".  Why do less that the best work?  (Why do I care that you have volunteered, I get paid for my work.)

I am not even sure that the person involved has any sense that the development of a conversation on first principles has started up and by making these types of posts that this principled discussion is destroyed.  There is nothing wrong with correctly developing a standard.

The consequences of poor work in the standards processes is harm to the society. I personally feel that this is a crime. 

Why when someone, anyone, begins to work on real issues; do we have this behavior pop up.. and then why does the whole community stand by and allow this?

This is serious work, and whether volunteer or not; it would be grounded on something other than play.

The volume of messages is largely due to non-sense that is interjected for the purpose of expressing the well understood set of behaviors.  If no one challanges the first principles, then the discussion either just going on forever without real resolution of anything or the discussion dies away.  

I challenge the group to "mark up" the behavior being expressed and to make sense of what is going on in the standards processes.  

Is this work worth while at all, if it is not serious work?

If any one wants to continue this discussion then join the forum:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/categoricalAbstraction

I will withdraw form this discussion for a while, as I have fought this battle many time with many people and I am not interested in the trouble, and frustration.

I am not going to press on in an environment where 

1) most do not read with is cited

2) the referred to behavior is accepted as a right by this minority to break down the conversation into something very close to being ridiculous.

Rex, I always have some difficulty finding out how to resign from a Oasis forum, perhaps you might send me a link so I can take care of removing myself from this discussion.  You and Len and anyone else is welcome to join my moderated forum...  I just do not wish to have to even read this type of non-sense.

A new work on linguistic functional load will be posted there.