Re: Review of QRG (Action 307)

On 27 Mar 2009, at 23:00, Christine Golbreich wrote:
> 2009/3/27 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>:
>> On 27 Mar 2009, at 19:09, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>>>
>>> Bijan Parsia a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Mar 2009, at 17:16, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> It is not such a guide. It is a cheatsheet.  It may, as a side  
>>>> effect, be
>>>> a useful guide. But that is not its purpose.
>>>
>>> Just to clarify: it *must* be a useful guide, and I presume it is  
>>> its
>>> intent to be so.
>
>> Sorry, you missed that this was shorthand "useful guide to the other
>> documents". Hence the use of "such" earlier in the paragraph.
>
> in fact, Bijan, you missed that this was shorthand of: "a useful
> guide to the constructs of the OWL 2 languages that are more
> extensively described in the other documents, and which the QRG points
> to: the Syntax which ...,  xx which....., yy which etc. "

The differences, Christine, are three fold:

First, my short hand was expanded in what I actually wrote just before  
the point of critique. Yours was expanded only in your head, to which  
I do not have direct access. I also rather suspect that your expansion  
was temporally quite posterior to your original email and, indeed, a  
post facto afflatus.

Second, it's still very unclear to me what you think the QRG is or  
should be.

Third, and most importantly, it is *not* such a shorthand.  "Guide to  
the documents" is simply a very different phrase than "Guide to the  
constructs of the language". One cannot be shorthand for the other.  
For example, the former truly describes the Document overview, but not  
the QRG. The latter describes the latter but not the Document overview.

If you merely miswrote, then you could have just said that instead of  
going somewhat ballistic. In general, I think our exchanges would go  
more smoothly if you didn't presume that everything I say is a  
personal criticism.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Saturday, 28 March 2009 00:17:04 UTC