RE: [huml-comment] RE: [egov] RE: A proposal regarding the Langua geTranslationSubcommittee

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

After 25 years of experience with creating markup specifications, 
I know that like any exercise in capturing domain intelligence, 
the narrower the domain, the higher the chance of success.  

Specifications like HumanML and its derived secondary languages 
can be used to inform other language processors just as we 
will use it to decorate rendering languages such as X3D, but 
that will be something that can only be established given 
working software. HumanML needs to focus on working projects 
that create these secondaries.

The decision to put diplomatic communications into 
eGov is a good decision with regards to HumanML. 

The US and other government groups had little 
real lasting success with the CALS SGML initiatives given 
an everexpanding scope.  It was not the technology (eg, 
SGML) that failed to work.  It was failure to realize 
policy in procurement in all but a few installations of 
the Tri-services.   If the procurement groups are 
unwilling to follow their lead, the work comes to nothing.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga [mailto:rkthunga@humanmarkup.org]

(I'm forwarding this to the humanmarkup discussion lists as well)

Certainly what you say Todd is sensible and I have no disagreement.  The entire domain of Diplomacy would necessarily belong within the eGov TC--not within HumanMarkup.  The vast majority of concepts involved with Diplomacy are government specific functions.  Further, they are not related to the purpose of HumanMarkup TC, which is specifically designed to explore means to increase the fidelity of human communication processes.  

From my standpoint, there are several processes involved within diplomacy.  One relates to the existing hard concepts involved in international diplomacy, including trade agreements and sanctions, such as those you have provided as examples for.  Another relates to what normally have been more tacit concepts--cultural, ideological, social, and human conveyance which have not been precisely described.   It is the latter set of concepts which the upcoming SC within HumanMarkup is specifically concerned with.

Based on your comments, I could see how using the term "diplomatic" within a future HumanMarkup SC would be misrepresentative, and I'll certainly propose an alternative name for the SC, focusing on conflict resolution issues more specifically.

We would probably be premature in delving too much further into the details of diplomacy before the Services SC gets underway, but these comments will help coordinate work as we proceed.