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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

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

I agree. However, right now, we need to take things one at a time. I think we can incorporate removing unnecessary terms in the same mechanism or set of mechanisms for adding terms through reworking the Requirements Document to reflect that. There are likely to be developments in the OASIS TC process in the next few months and I would like to get our first spec as far along as we can, within reason. I would like us to approve it after the public comment period, while we move forward as expeditiously as we can to field the sample implementations to support it. That process, along with formalizing how we want to proceed with the Secondary Base Specification is something I think we need to move forward with sooner rather than later. We need to attract more participation for a number of reasons, and having work to show is probably the only way that is going to happen.

Ciao,

Rex

At 12:23 PM -0600 12/5/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> 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.
> >

-- 

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