OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

humanmarkup message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [huml] PC-34-Section 4.2.20-24-Semiosis, Semiote, Sign,Signal and Symbol

Hi Everyone,

This is the TC list version. I wanted to ask if you all could look at 
schedules and rsvp me on whether or not you think will be able to 
attend the next scheduled telecon, Wed. December 18, 2002. I need to 
know if we will be able to conduct business, barring unforeseeable 
circumstances. How much work I throw at this problem is in the 

This is a call for discussion around these Semiotic terms. If you 
review the minutes for November's meeting, we said that we had 
tentatively agreed to include sign as the base term, although we did 
not specifically rule out Semiosis, Semiote, Signal or Symbol. Due to 
the imminent vote on race, I started thinking about our relative 
consensus on removing Signal and Symbol and reviewing Semiosis and 
Semiote, and I also had to consider the fact that we did not have a 
quorum at our last meeting, which is what prompted us to vote on the 
mailing list to change the short name of the TC.

Let me state my own preference here. I think we should take Signal 
and Symbol out and rework the precise definition of Sign in order 
accommodate both as derivations. I would prefer to keep Semiosis and 
Semiote, with Semiosis being reworked in order to accommodate both 
Perician and Saussurian interpretations. I am fine with Semiote as is 
and I think we need it.

That's my view for what it's worth. However, we the fact is that we 
are not going to have enough time to discuss this and vote on the 
mailing list before the end of the public comment period, so we might 
be better off leaving it as is. The reason I say that is that we have 
already established the need to develop a process to amend the PBS 
and we might want to test it out by developing the sample semiotic 
processor to see if we really don't need all of these terms in the 
Primary Base. However, we still have problems since we have some 
distinct differences of opinion, I think, on the best definition for 
sign and symbol.

If those differences were harmonized, we could probably downgrade the 
issues PC-23 and PC-24 to editorial and resolve them by consensus. 
The question then would not require a vote, so we would not have to 
wait until the next meeting in the hope that we have a quorum. Nor 
would we need to conduct another vote on the mailing list. Otherwise, 
these changes will be sufficient to require a second 30-day public 
comment period.

I don't know about you all, but I would prefer not to do that, but if 
we need to, so be it.

There are other considerations, but they are not directly concerned 
with the specification per se. We have seen quite a bit of attrition 
in our ranks this year and I think it could become critical to our 
ability to carry through with this work.

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC