- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:44:31 +0000
- To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: "'Ginsberg, Allen'" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 14 Feb 2007, at 13:07, Gerd Wagner wrote: >>>>> Not being "consistent with classical semantics" doesn't mean >>>>> much for what we are trying to do. No important computational >>>>> formalism I'm aware of is "consistent with classical semantics". > >> ... > >> So I take this to be similar to Allen's arrogation of the term >> "logic" to mean only classical logic. > >> ... > >> So I respectively request that people refrain from making such >> bombastic claims, regardless of their personal perceptions of the >> merits of those claims. > > Yes, Bijan, you are right. > > But sometimes it is tempting making a strong claim to > counter a misconception (namely that true logic is > classical logic and therefore that's what we should > try to use/impose in/to the world of computation). I agree it is tempting. I was so tempted wrt to *your* claim :) But as fun as sarcasm and bombast are, sometimes it's just more productive to refrain. (I am v. bad at resisting this temptation, or the sarcasm temptation, in a lot of circumstances.) Glad we're on the same page! (FWIW, I don't think there's bad faith anywhere in here! I just think a little more generosity on terminological matters and acknowledgment of other terms and perspectives would be good.) Taking such disputes offline until one reaches a resolution is sometimes helpful as well. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 13:44:05 UTC