RE: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-r ace

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

Title: RE: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Sect

Maybe the short way to put it is that "race" is not a universal

property of humans or human communication.   It is a sign

and therefore, belongs in a secondary based on the secondaries

rules for sign membership.    Given that, should be inspect

the primary and look for any other oddities like that?  As

we have debated this one, I realize that we should be even

stingier about what goes into the primary.  My own understanding

of how to apply the primary is improving and it reinforces my

position that less is more in the base.   I keep coming back

to the question I asked a year ago:  what is human?  Then,

what about being human affects communication?  If that seems

abstract, well, the primary is essentially an abstraction.

 

len

From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]

Thanks, Len,

I understand this a little better now. I'm afraid I'm more concerned with a compelling reason to remove the attribute race from the attributeGroup phyicalDescriptors. I am satsified that we can get to the current usages through this set of properties method. As of now, for me, the argument that it is not objective is sufficient, and if were not a term used in current practices, it would be compelling in an of itself, but with current usages, however one views those usages, it doesn't rise to the level of compelling for me and I would be happier with a clearly compelling reason the completely trumps current usages, which can nevertheless still be accommodated. That does not mean I favor retaining it. I don't.