W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Less strong equivalences (was Re: blog: semantic dissonance in uniprot)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:04:15 +0000
Cc: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>, Mark Wilkinson <markw@illuminae.com>, Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, W3C HCLSIG hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A4618E21-1A0B-4905-AE1F-FC236E6ABC74@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
On 25 Mar 2009, at 20:54, Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:

>     Hello Bijan,
>
>  If a few simple and obvious question

How are they simple and obvious?

> is already unwelcome,

I just don't understand where you're coming from.

> then
> there is no need to engage.

Well, I'm trying to figure out if you're hostile to the very idea or  
if you have specific requirements. If you are hostile to the very idea  
of alternative relations, then there's not much point in our  
discussion is there?

When you say stuff like "These are not even transitive, right?", I  
have to say, it doesn't seem very engaged. More helpful would be your  
stating whether it is a requirement that these relationships be  
transitive. And why.

Also, stating your question as a disguised assertion doesn't seem very  
productive. :)

Of course, if a bit of mild push back is already unwelcome, then, of  
course, there is no need to engage :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 21:04:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:41 UTC