Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

On 20 May 2008, at 17:15, Murray Maloney wrote:

> At 04:45 PM 5/20/2008 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>>> I think (judging from your line of argument) that there is no
>>> *principled*
>>> means to prevent you from drawing that conclusion.
>>
>> Did you get garbled here? So you are saying that the only way for you
>> to prevent me from drawing that conclusion is to appeal to
>> unprincipled means (e.g., bullying, insult, whatever) rather than
>> principled means (e.g., argument, evidence, etc.)?
>>
>> I'm shocked that you would say that. I presume it's a typo. But a
>> quick skim of what follows leaves me unsure.
>
> Bijan, I have been lurking through this discussion, but am jumping  
> in now.
>
> First of all, I have been having a heck of a time trying to figure  
> out what
> it is that you think about GRDDL. Apparently you don't like some  
> aspects
> of the design. Too bad you weren't here for the process. Kinda late to
> be throwing stones now.

Is it? If there's a problem there's a problem. Something being a rec  
doesn't change that.

> Secondly, it seems as though Chime is politely

?! That's interesting.

> trying to point out that
> your arguments have been unprincipled.

I assure you that I do not believe that they are. I am arguing  
entirely in good faith. I don't know how I can convince you otherwise.

> That you misunderstood
> the spec is not an indictment of the spec itself or of the GRDDL WG.

I'm confused. The editor of the spec said I did not misread the spec.

> Try reading the spec carefully and then ask question to seek  
> clarification

Hmm. And *I've* been accused of being condescending? :)

> rather than casting aspersions based upon your own misunderstandings.

I thought the spec was unambiguous...aren't we arguing about whether  
this portion of the spec is *useful*?

I feel like I should say what you just said, but about my emails :)

> If, after reading the spec, you don't understand our motivation, try
> reading the use cases -- a lot of time was spent making that document.
> Show some respect for the WG, as the WG has shows you.

If I did that, based on this email, then things would go very pear  
shaped ;)

I'd be happy to argue the other side if someone would, in good faith,  
try to argue mine. That might help.

Cheers,
Bijan.