Responding to Hans-Christoph von Imhoff (4 November 2003): Please excuse me, Hans-Christoph: I had already responded to Stephen de Clerq's message before seeing your message. I have thought about your comments on "scientific and cultural heritage", and suggestion of a shorter, summarising use of "human heritage". I continue to think that the response I made after Steven's suggestion is the better one: (..."promoting knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity".....) rather than condensing the reference as tightly as you have proposed: (...."promoting knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the heritage of humanity"). To my mind, there are two crucial underlying concepts structuring the definition I proposed: (a) "knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world" - is a phrase to acknowledge the important responsibilities we have to the 'world we inherit' and all the creatures and interconnecting life-systems it supports (i.e. our biosphere responsibilities); (b) "....and the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity" - is a phrase to summon up all aspects of the 'world we create' as human beings, through language, structured kinship, value systems, social organisation, rationalisation of a relationship between different phases of time (history), and the huge spectrum of structured, purposive activities we see as branching into all aspects of the sciences and arts (i.e. our sociosphere responsibilities). Your suggested "heritage of humanity" alone would leave us with a much smaller expression trying to carry a huge number of activities about the human-created world, and it could easily seem that science (especially) might have been devalued. My further reason would be that more particularised descriptions are important components of the international legal instruments for protection of what you have called "human heritage" world-wide. (There are a number of recurrent, differently arranged, but fundamental distinctions operating if you look at the contents of UNESCO conventions, for example). e.g. 1972: Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Paris, 16 November 1972 or: 2001: Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Paris, 2 November 2001 (notice that this latter convention, with shipwrecks especially in mind, distinguishes 'cultural heritage' within the underwater (or Fr.'sub-aquatic) biosphere - an important distinction within the purposes and terms of the convention) Meanwhile I thank you very much for your comments, Hans-Christoph. Bernice Murphy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html