Re: EIIF draft needs unified person

This "pet" vs. "person" issue illustrates a deeper problem of terminology, that 
"person" is strictly a legal concept that instructs us how we must deal with a
being (having rights and so on), while "pet" is a social one, neither of which
actually specifies the species or physical capacities of the being in question.
It may well be the best solution to treat a pet as a limited person because
they do effectively have rights from the perspective of those who care for them.

But for the base class, terms like "individual" or "being" may be much preferable,
as the only thing we can say for sure about all living things that we care about
is that they are unique individuals and that they experience some kind of life
or being.  The word "individual" further distincts the living aspect of human resources
from "social" (interpersonal) trust and "instructional" (explicit, written, operational
or command data) abstractions.  So it's a much more useful word in managing human
capital/resources in a crisis - you are talking about the skills of *that* paramedic not 
that of *any* paramedic, for instance, if you are referring to them "as an" individual.

For instance someone particularly skilled at dealing with a certain ailment or aspect
of culture (like access to female victims).  


It's well worth the effort to sort this out early.


----- Original Message ----
From: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>
To: public-xg-eiif <public-xg-eiif@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 9:29:50 PM
Subject: Re: EIIF draft needs unified person


Thanks for the comments Gary. The Conceptual Framework does need work and you suggestions are noted for improvement....

> We have "people" and "organizations" concept boxes in the diagram (with some non-exclusive sub-types in each – "pets" as "people"!!).

Some people think their pets are their children ;-)

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:21:31 UTC