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

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

Yes.  I understand the procedural concerns.

I thought we should answer one of Dennis's questions:  how 
can HumanML be applied to reduce human miscommunication.  While 
we often talk about various applications of HumanML (eg, 
humanized avatars, genre-enabled authoring, capturing 
and illuminating cultural sign systems such as the dancing 
examples, etc), we don't often explain how it can be used to 
meet the goal of reducing human miscommunication.

In short: by providing a means to declare communication 
contexts from inheritable categories that are universally human.

HumanML takes advantage of the work done in the 
fields of semiotics as has been applied in for example, 
marketing, to provide a set of context categories which 
experience and testing have shown affect human understanding. 
We are not attempting the sort of thing the Semantic Web 
attempts: machine-based reasoning, although the sources 
of HumanML documents might be useful there by transformation. 
The notion is to enable humans to apply the language and 
they should not have to be sociologists or programmers 
to do so.  That is why we don't use the more strict and 
formal means such as Sowa's conceptual graphs with their 
reliance on formal analysis and mathematical technique 
although one can, as I said, use such analysis and techniques 
to improve the secondary designs.

Race is a good example.  Given the right contexts, it can 
be used for certain purposes.  Given the wrong contexts, 
it can mislead and be abusive.  One thing a properly 
annotated document can do is enable others to discover 
which contexts have which effects in given situations. 

One might say, learning to read the road signs and 
then choosing wisely among the available routes.

len

From: Rex Brooks [mailto: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.