W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:57:13 +0000
To: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
CC: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>, "david@dbooth.org" <david@dbooth.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C832D269E060@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Xiasho,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@musc.edu] 
> Sent: 18 June 2009 16:31
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Sean B. Palmer; david@dbooth.org; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting
> 
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> > Xaioshu,
> >
> >   
> >> The real issue is that TAG, for whatever reason that I cannot 
> >> understand, refuses to acknowledge such a simple truth:  what you get 
> >> from a URI is NOT what a URI denotes.
> >>     
> >
> > Please will you stop making this claim.  You and I have 
> > visited this many times [and (no-doubt) bored many people on 
> > this list] and agreed that no-one[*] on the TAG holds the 
> > view that "what you get from a URI is what a URI denotes". 
> > You again start your argument by restating a false-premise, 
> > that the TAG holds a position that AFAICT it never held 
> > whilst I was a part of it.
> >
> > Stuart
> > --
> > [*] by which I mean that I know of no-one on the TAG that 
> > holds the view which you imply.
> >   
> I am not implying everyone but I do imply someone because, otherwise, I 
> just could not understand: what is the hold up for even an 
> open debate?

Well... http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch is pretty clear in its one and only diagram that what is obtained from the web are awww:representation of a resource as opposed to the resource itself. I think that accords with your position.

> I have to file a serious complain in order to get my manuscript accepted 
> to the IR-KR2009, which I am glad the PC chairs did.  One reviewer, whom 
> I was told is a very "well known person" to the web community that they 
> must respect, made some very unfair (as far as from I can understand) 
> comments.  My impression is that the reviewer just simply did not want 
> my opinion to be out there.

I can make no comment. However, FWIW as was not involved in the review process at all.

> This makes me very upset because something must be *seriously* wrong.  
> Here is what I wrote to the PC chairs of IR-KR2009, I think the problem 
> should concern us all. 
> 
> "I remember Bertrand Russell explained the difference between Religion 
> and Philosophy.  He said they both differ from science because they are 
> all about speculations.  But the former appeals to authority and the 
> latter to human reason.  There are some unhealthy trend in the Web and 
> it becomes more religious than philosophical -- this really concerns 
> us.  One of the purpose of this article is trying to make it right.  Not 
> that my opinion is right, this is minor but what is important is to 
> evaluate alternative opinion through intelligent debate but by 
> obedience.  It really surprises me that one person has so much power and 
> can control even a workshop.
> 
> Honestly, I am not simply disappointed.  I am actually quite angry and 
> seriously concerned -- not for my own sake but for the sake of the Web 
> community.  Hopefully, we will not turn the Web philosophy into a Web 
> religion."

Fair enough... but you cannot make a valid argument by attributing a position to a group that it does not hold (and AFAIK never has).

> Xiaoshu

Stuart
--
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 15:58:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:14 GMT