[humanmarkup] FW: [humanorg] Diplomatic Communications: Take 1

Title: Re: [humanorg] Diplomatic Communications: Take 1

I am 
forwarding these messages to the OASIS Comments list.

 

One of 
the topics for Wednesday's TC meetings will be to discuss the possible creation 
of a Diplomatic Communications Subcommittee within the TC.  This was a 
topic of discussion during our informal TC meetings (which we are currently 
holding on Yahoo IM Conference Sunday mornings 8am EST).  If any new 
members have any questions about this, please contact me.

 

I will be going to DC next week to attend the UA Expedition 
conference and XML WG conference, as well as meet with a couple of different 
representatives regarding diplomatic communications if I can as well.  

 

I do appreciate the feedback guys, and I hope 
to compile a report soon.

 

--

Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga

 

 

 Thanks for the thoughtfulness 
and research, Joe. The RAND article is good for a number of reasons. It 
certainly misses the point of purposeful misrepresentation of facts and 
misrepresentation of the translated meanings of terms, such as apology and the 
way in which that particular term was used. But it is, after all, an editorial 
and short to boot.

It was the purposeful use and misuse of that term by both sides which was 
my original reason for suggesting it as a clear example of Diplomatic use of 
language in a way that Human Markup might be able to improve, or at least 
clarify, whether the parties wish to provide or acknowledge better translations 
or not. The Israelis and Palestinians are particularly unwilling to part with 
their own definitions even when the whole world is pointing out that their 
language is locking them ever deeper into cycles of pure vengeance.

I agree with the need for us to emphasize how HM can improve 
efficiency.

I confess my eyes glaze over when I start reading state dept mission-speak. 
Good thing I'm not trying to deal with that arena.

Ciao,

Rex

Dear Ranjeeth and 
  everyone,
 
Anticipating 
  Ranjeeth's important trip to DC, I have prepared a few observations and links 
  that will aid in Diplomatic Communications research:
 

Observations and 
  Comments about the DipCon Paper as it stands
 

 a) 
  "Imprecise reporting techniques"
 
 -since a lot of 
  my research has been working the on Intelligence issues, I have found that the 
  issue of report writing, dissemination, and comment writing were a cause of 
  great concern and internet
 -I will provide a synopsis of an article 
  from an Intelligence journal on this issue
 
 b) Example of 
  the Chinese downing of US Aircraft
 
 -when RKT told 
  me that this would be the primary historical example for our paper I was 
  reticent, and mused that perhaps a more distant historical event would be 
  preferable
 -I have found a 
  great editorial from the folks at RAND http://www.rand.org/hot/op-eds/041501SDUT.html
 -the author provides 5 lessons learned, and RKT 
  can use these in an HM context
 
 c) issues of 
  "formalized explicit expression
 
 -this ties in 
  with the reporting techniques
 -we need to drive home the benefits of 
  HM efficiencies technology-wise
 
 D) State 
  Department Mission Information
 
 -FYI: (quote 
  from State site)
 
 To carry out 
  U.S. foreign policy, the Department of State:
 
Leads interagency 
  coordination and manages the allocation of resources in conducting foreign 
  relations;
Represents the United States overseas and conveys U.S. policies 
  to foreign governments and international organizations through U.S. embassies 
  and consulates in foreign countries and diplomatic missions;
Coordinates 
  and supports international activities of other U.S. agencies, hosts official 
  visits, and performs other diplomatic missions; and
Conducts negotiations 
  and concludes agreements and treaties on issues ranging from trade to nuclear 
  weapons.
 
*****
 
Ok this sums up my 
  take on RKT's DipCon, I will post another stab with info from my research 
  soon.
 
Ranjeeth: Anything 
  septic regarding the DipCon doc that you would like to me look 
into?
 
Cordially,
Joe