RE: [huml-comment] PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-race

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I am tempted to be flip and say, as I have in the past: "Yeah, what 
he said." However, I just did and I also want to add that the 
criterion I supplied for Ranjeeth applies to the standards-writing 
and voting process, not the criterion here stated. This one here is 
more along the lines of a criterion for the items or components on 
their own merits, or lack thereof, rather than how the process for 
making the decision should be conducted, which is what concerned me. 
This is a good guide for deciding about race, though, and how the 
language itself works.

Thanks, Len.

Ciao,
Rex

At 8:41 AM -0600 12/3/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I've been pointing to context usage for terms.
>The terms exist, are in wide use, and  have
>issues with the situatedness of their use varying
>by individual, group, culture and so on. 
>
>In a real sense, the categories of the primary should
>frame such terms, or simpler, enable the user to
>create a context of metainformation for the use of
>the term.  Race is a good example of a term where
>the original contexts (historical/temporal) are
>changing and becoming less relevant to current
>contexts.  Yet we cannot state categorically that
>the current contexts are more right, only that they
>are different.   We can say simply and supportably
>that we don't need race because it adds no value
>to the primary where the primary serves as a means
>to create contextualizing metadata.
>
>Removing race from the primary is supportable by
>argument that as a category, it can be created in
>a secondary by reference to physical descriptors
>and other observables.   Now HumanML has a clear
>use case.  Given a codelist in a secondary for a
>term not inherited from the primary, the secondary
>wrapper element or the codelist members could have
>an attribute or element that references a metadata
>document whose elements and attributes are derived
>from HumanML and the contents of which create the
>necessary framework for using that codelist.  HumanML
>types are thus a means of contextualizing the sign.
>
>What I am resisting is removing a term because it
>offends an individual or group.   That is a path that
>once taken, becomes irresistable to those who
>would impose their own individual and potentially
>narrow contexts.  Rationale is needed that is
>reapplicable or we will become a political debating
>list.  To drop it, we don't need to warn or otherwise
>comment beyond it being a term that while in common
>use in descriptors of individual humans and groups
>in a database, does not have a universal application and 
>is derivable by use of contextual signs now available
>in the primary.   It can make a good example of
>a way to apply HumanML.  In short, a goal of HumanML
>is ameliorate miscommunication.   Race is a term
>that can cause miscommunication.  It is easy
>to discover such candidates by observing that their
>use provokes strong emotions.   Such terms can be
>framed using HumanML-derived context metadata and
>this is of great value because this metadata provides
>information for making correct selections from, for
>example, codelists.
>
>len
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: m batsis [mailto:mbatsis@netsmart.gr]
>
>cognite@zianet.com wrote:
>
>>Being non-objective as well as prejudicial, this term thus merits being
>>dropped from huml Physical Descriptor primaries and  relegated to possible
>>user-developed secondaries, with a warning that its usage may entail
>>problems of vagueness and poor communication.
>>
>I also fail to see how the benefits of this term are enough to shadow
>the negative elements described above.
>
>Since this is supposed to be against misscommunication, we should be
>exploring more objective models that actually help in isolating the
>legacy terms one can abuse, at least when viable workarounds exist. I
>haven't been convinced that race can justify it's position in the
>primaries or  the possible loss in case of it's omission from the primaries.
>
>I'm wondering about the opinion of lurkers in this and any issues around
>the primaries, i mean "hello people, this is the public comment period"...


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