[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 balance. 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. Ciao, Rex -- 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