Re: GRDDL and OWL/XML

At 04:45 PM 5/20/2008 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:

>>I think (judging from your line of argument) that there is no
>>*principled*
>>means to prevent you from drawing that conclusion.
>
>Did you get garbled here? So you are saying that the only way for you
>to prevent me from drawing that conclusion is to appeal to
>unprincipled means (e.g., bullying, insult, whatever) rather than
>principled means (e.g., argument, evidence, etc.)?
>
>I'm shocked that you would say that. I presume it's a typo. But a
>quick skim of what follows leaves me unsure.

Bijan, I have been lurking through this discussion, but am jumping in now.

First of all, I have been having a heck of a time trying to figure out what
it is that you think about GRDDL. Apparently you don't like some aspects
of the design. Too bad you weren't here for the process. Kinda late to
be throwing stones now.

Secondly, it seems as though Chime is politely trying to point out that
your arguments have been unprincipled. That you misunderstood
the spec is not an indictment of the spec itself or of the GRDDL WG.
Try reading the spec carefully and then ask question to seek clarification
rather than casting aspersions based upon your own misunderstandings.
If, after reading the spec, you don't understand our motivation, try
reading the use cases -- a lot of time was spent making that document.
Show some respect for the WG, as the WG has shows you.

Over.

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 16:14:13 UTC