RE: [huml-comment] Human Markup Language 1.0 considered harmful

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I think the issue of the term race is somewhat confusing. In any 
event, it deserves it's own discussion because as I have thought 
about it, it probably needs more attention.

However, the added value that HumanML will make isn't apparent in the 
Primary Base Schema because the PBS really doesn't DO much. Our 
sample implementations will be so simple that I suspect that one 
criticism we will face is just that--where's the enhancement?

The fact is that the enhancements won't be clearly apparent until the 
application writers start working with it. Right now we are trying to 
bring together the elements and attributes needed for those 
applications, such as I enumerated recently, but we won't be 
releasing the first draft of the Secondary Base Schema for at least 
another year, if not somewhat longer.

What is clear is that we need to explain our work better, both what 
the aims are and how we get there. And we need to be clear about what 
the Primary Base Schema/Specification is and what it can do, which is 
not very much at this stage. It is a little like trying to explain 
how you are going to build a city when all you have to show is one 
mud brick, but we will get there.

Ciao,
Rex

At 9:45 AM -0800 12/2/02, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>Rex pointed that out to me.
>
>I am, of course, aware of the ways that the term "race" is used in a variety
>of situations.
>
>The question that remains unanswered for me is how does including that, with
>no effort to provide semantics beyond how it is ordinarily used,
>contributing anything to "enhancing the fidelity of human communication."
>
>What are you giving us that we haven't already got?  Are you alleviating the
>contentiousness?  Are you making it clear when something is an attribution
>versus a factual matter?
>
>That's what I want to know.  The "race" term is what caught my eye.  It was
>the red flag.  It isn't what I am objecting to!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 06:08
>To: 'dennis.hamilton@acm.org'; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: William Anderson; rkthunga@humanmarkup.org
>Subject: RE: [huml-comment] Human Markup Language 1.0 considered harmful
>
>
>The author of the blog would do well to consider
>how a very large percentage of the forms filled
>out for everyday transactions includes a field
>for "race".  We did have a thread early on in
>the development of the primary considering this
>term which is normal for everyday communications
>but contentious in some scientific fields, particularly,
>anthropology.   A "race" classification is easily
>discernible but sometimes inaccurate.   As such,
>while it can be used in a codelist, interpretations
>of the value have to be left to the user of the
>term in the derived secondary.
>
>len
>
>From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
>
>But, given the document at face value, I am concerned that the assertion of
>"nothing taken for granted" and self-assertion as a test of humanity are at
>best ingenuous.  My demonstration is the supposition of "race" as a physical
>characteristic.  And that it be describable (I hesitate to use the notion of
>description at all here) by a code.
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com