W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January 2005

Re: OMG Ontology Metamodel Definition Review

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:53:41 +0000
Message-ID: <41F7CB15.9000003@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
CC: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, Grady Booch <gbooch@us.ibm.com>

Phil Tetlow wrote:
> Jeremy,
> Ok, so I hope that a light hearted reply is in order?
> Interesting that you prefer to concentrate on  the conclusions. I
> personally felt that additional text was needed to recognised the excellent
> work that both the ODM and UML teams have undertaken to get us to where we
> are today. I further consider that the material in sections 7 & 8 of this
> document is indeed important. It provides an extremely valuable context for
> those who do not have the advantage of being as familiar with this area as
> recognised experts such as yourself - This type of material is
> unfortunately lacking within our community. Nevertheless, point taken - I
> am a consultant by trade, so 'fluff' is my native dialect, only we have a
> technical term for it....For me it is harder to be concise. I must
> apologise.
> I think its really important to get across is the obvious overall value of
> this document, as well as the individual recommendations it makes - right
> or wrong. It is surely superb that such a comprehensive piece of work has
> been undertaken at this opportune time and I'm enthused that it will help
> to 'align' current thinking across a number of desperate camps.
I agree wholeheartedly that it is important to express enthusiasm, but 
I'm increasingly aware of the enthusiasm expressed by a short review 
such as this one:
The CSS working group reviewed the document[1] and has no comments. We
found the document clear and readable.
(that's a complete review)

(that's probably a little too far the other way), A document editor 
wants to know - "did they like it?" "what do I need to do?". The first 
sentence of a review should answer the first question, the rest of the 
review the second; care should be taken to highlight important changes 
from unimportant changes.

It's merely stylistic preferences, and yes it oftens takes longer to say 
the same in fewer words.

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2005 16:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC