Re: Review of QRG (Action 307)

> if you didn't presume that everything I say is a personal criticism.".

Odd. I have simply completed my Action 307 that I consider now as
closed. This interpretation is your entire responsibility. I did not
take what you say as "personal", except this offensive sentence for
which I ask apologizes.

Christine

2009/3/28 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>:
> 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.
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Saturday, 28 March 2009 08:23:15 UTC