W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: ACTION-219: review of CORE (more)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:44:31 +0000
Message-Id: <51AD4AC1-5F49-497D-B288-972C07EBD57C@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Ginsberg, Allen'" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>

On 14 Feb 2007, at 13:07, Gerd Wagner wrote:

>>>>> Not being "consistent with classical semantics" doesn't mean
>>>>> much for what we are trying to do. No important computational
>>>>> formalism I'm aware of is "consistent with classical semantics".
>> ...
>> So I take this to be similar to Allen's arrogation of the term
>> "logic" to mean only classical logic.
>> ...
>> So I respectively request that people refrain from making such
>> bombastic claims, regardless of their personal perceptions of the
>> merits of those claims.
> Yes, Bijan, you are right.
> But sometimes it is tempting making a strong claim to
> counter a misconception (namely that true logic is
> classical logic and therefore that's what we should
> try to use/impose in/to the world of computation).

I agree it is tempting. I was so tempted wrt to *your* claim :) But  
as fun as sarcasm and bombast are, sometimes it's just more  
productive to refrain.

(I am v. bad at resisting this temptation, or the sarcasm temptation,  
in a lot of circumstances.)

Glad we're on the same page!

(FWIW, I don't think there's bad faith anywhere in here! I just think  
a little more generosity on terminological matters and acknowledgment  
of other terms and perspectives would be good.)

Taking such disputes offline until one reaches a resolution is  
sometimes helpful as well.


Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 13:44:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:42 UTC