W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:42:59 -0500
To: Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020322074259O.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:14:50 +0100

> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >>[1] 
> >>
> > http://www-lti.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~clu/papers/archive/lutzdiss.pdf
> > 
> > I don't think I have time to read 225 pages ... :(
> > 
> > Is there a shorter version of the central argument?
> Jeremy,
> This is a well known proof method called "proof by intimidation" :-)
> Frank.
>     ----

Frank is dancing around an important point, and one that has, I believe,
not been adequately addressed in this working group.

We have all (except, maybe, the alternates) signed up to spend a
significant amount of time on the affairs of this working group.  I believe
that it is common knowledge that the minimum amount of time that a working
group member should be devoting to the working group is one day per week.  

So I do not think that anyone should find it onerous to be pointed to a
Ph.D. thesis that contains the most-complete description of information
related to the activities of the working group.  If there is a shorter
version, then fine, and working group members should expect to be told
about it.  However, there should be no complaints, even in jest, nor should
there be claims of intimidation, even in jest.  If a working group member
cares about the issue, then that member should be prepared to put in the
effort to understand it.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 07:43:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:42 UTC