- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:04:15 +0000
- To: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- 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>
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