Subject: Re: [Ltru] is there some wiskey in the jar - [was: Registry in record-jar format]

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:35:15 +0200

At 22:10 31/03/2005, John Cowan wrote:
>Many dictionaries do not have this last item, particularly dictionaries of
>and in English, where the boundaries are extremely permeable.

1. Unfortunately. However I suppose you will make a difference between 
Basic American and English. But you have to consider the purpose: you 
cannot consider a lingua franca as a reference.

2. I am sure that all the people who work on ontologies round the world 
desserve better a comment by their standardisers.

3. Standard are made by cute people to permit less interested people to 
live better. Don't you agree?  There is something which says that dumbness 
of some only enlights smartness of others.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:49:47 -0500

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit:

> 1. Unfortunately.

We like it that way.

> However I suppose you will make a difference between 

Eh?  American English is somewhat more standardized in written form than
British English is.

> desserve better a comment by their standardisers.

The genius of the English language is its immense flexibility.

> of some only enlights smartness of others.

I more or less understand your words, but your point escapes me entirely.

-- 
We call nothing profound                        [email-masked]
that is not wittily expressed.                  John Cowan
        --Northrop Frye (improved)              http://www.reutershealth.com

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 06:20:09 +0200

> > >and in English, where the boundaries are extremely permeable.

This is exactly what I say. Personal gustos have nothing to do in an 
international standard.

>Eh?  American English is somewhat more standardized in written form than

??? Your whole point is that "in English boundaries are extremely 
permeable". You seem to contradict.

>The genius of the English language is its immense flexibility.

I suppose you lost the thread here. Your comment wiped off all the ontologies.

jfc

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:30:43 -0800

Hi -

> From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
> To: "John Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] is there some wiskey in the jar - [was: Registry inrecord-jar format]
>

> This is exactly what I say. Personal gustos have nothing to do in an

Please identify the specific text you want changed.
(I assume you meant something like "Personal taste should not
be reflected in international standards."  (I've never observed
this to be true in practice.))

> permeable". You seem to contradict.

I see no contradiction.  The permeability of the boundaries in question is
completely independent of the extent to which spelling has been standardized.

> I suppose you lost the thread here. Your comment wiped off all the ontologies.
...

Everyone: if you want your postings to be taken seriously,
please identify the specific changes needed to address your concerns.

Randy

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 02:55:04 +0200

>Please identify the specific text you want changed.

Dear Randy,
I indicated that I will present a review and a Draft. AP & MD documented it 
took them a full year's work to produce their Draft which does not consider 
others' needs. Allow us time enough to do something serious. I indicated: 
before mid-April.

>(I assume you meant something like "Personal taste should not be reflected 
>in international standards."

I mean gustos (spa) or gustoes (eng) as the personal taste and the artistic 
enjoyment of John. I acknowledge there John has a literary culture to be 
respected. And remind this culture is not unique, in ISO and in real world: 
even if it is in the IETF for historic and pragmatic reason.

>  (I've never observed this to be true in practice.))

Neither did I. But I also observed that most of the international standard 
blockages and delays result from the need of compromise on that very 
matter. This is why the best way to block the Draft I am advised, is to 
leave it the way it is.

>completely independent of the extent to which spelling has been standardized.

We talked of meanings and styles. Anyway the point is that standard should 
address concepts, not languages specifics. Lacks of a language cannot be a 
motive not to consider issues risen by others.

>Everyone: if you want your postings to be taken seriously, please identify 
>the specific changes needed to address your concerns.

Sorry, but before proposing changes (or a new approach) we try first to 
understand what are the needs the Draft tries to address. This is why I 
take everyone's postings very seriously and I thank everyone for their 
contribution, in particular Frank, Thomas, Ira, L.Gillam, Debbie, Doug and 
John. This is one of the ways I try to understand what are the needs the 
Draft tries to address.

The other way is to call for help betters than me. I made a PDF of the 
Draft and send it around. No one yet said "I read it, I understand it, I 
support it". Most say "I do not understand what they want, it does not 
really make sense". A few say "their charter is not bad, may be should they 
read it". The remaining says: "Drop the issue. It will never fly, we will 
oppose: our prerequisites are not even considered".

I must say I am quite dismayed by these reponses (which call for a real 
effort to obtain). Obviously no one is really excited about improving RFC 
3066 which just middly does not work in a way most are happy with.
jfc