RE: [humanmarkup-comment] modified HumanML taxonomy

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

The reason we moved away from enumerations of this type 
in the primary (these are secondaries) was precisely 
because we found that the answer is arbitrary.  So 
we decided to create a toolkit approach for building 
such.  HumanML might as well be SemioticML or HumanSignML 
at the primary level.  What David has now is a secondary 
with no primary type references.  The toolkit approach is there 
such that emergence as exemplified by a human sitting 
down to contruct a sign system might exhibit.  That 
this is a "natural" activity is hard to debate.  It 
is a "human" and "intelligent" activity.

len

From: paul [mailto:beadmaster@ontologystream.com]

Now one can ask about the origin of this list of about attributes.  Is the list complete in every way or are there some issues here and there with one or more of the attributes?

Who has decided on these and not some other attributes?  Can we add or subtract to this list?