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 08:52:02 -0500
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020322085202A.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:09:45 -0500 (EST)

> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> One day a week can soon be eaten up just trying to track the mailing list.
> 
> WG members can't simply demand that fellow WG members read huge PhD docs
> and appeal to W3C Process. If you want people to spent 2+ hours on some
> task, you either need to pay them or persuade them.

I'm not demanding that anyone read this document.  However, it contains the
most-complete discusssion of an aspect of an issue that is a point of
contention.   

> If some WG member were to demand that *you* had to read the complete works
> of Derrida to understand their WG position, it would be reasonable for you
> to ask why, for a (pointer to a) summary of the key points etc. I doubt
> you'd scurry off to buy the books without more than a little persuasion.

Sure, provided that there had not already been such a summary.  However,
the pointer to a web-accessible Ph.D. thesis (quite different from a vague
reference to the complete works of Derrida, by the way) was provided for
those who might want to look further, in the context of a short description
of the problem.

> We're fortunate to be part of a pretty civilised and collaborative effort,
> where most suggested reading pointers are useful, interesting, relevant.
> Nevertheless, we need to be realistic about the time constraints everyone
> is working under. Pointers into the literature are great, but they're not
> a substitute for making clear and consise arguments on this list.

There have already been such arguments, in the working group email and
elsewhere.  A pointer to the literature should not be met with arguments,
even in jest, about ``intimidation''.

> Dan
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 08:53:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT