- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:51:56 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 05:57 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 16:18, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 02:05 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: >> >>> Why argue against a position that noone has taken? >> >> Are you genuinely asking or indirectly suggesting I shouldn't? >> >> Because it's not clear that no one has taken it. > > I don't see how this will make it clear. I didn't say it would. But if someone held the view, the argument might convince them otherwise. It might help firm up consensus against the view (which hasn't been established, yet, except informally), and it might reveal other things. Or, what the heck, one persons modus pones is another's modus tollens. >> Also, it was involved a non-obvious consequence of the position, one, >> I >> believe, may affect some of the weaker views propounded or suggested. >> So I laid out the argument so we could understand better what might be >> wrong with SOC. >> >> And if no one has taken it, what do you care that I chose to refute >> it? > > I don't. never mind. I really should start skipping to the end of messages before starting to reply. I just note the cost of queries like that. Also, you didn't reply to my response to request you made in the latter part of you message, especially wrt I have met your standard for terminological explication. I'm trying to figure out what counts as meeting your request, as, before your note, I though I was doing a very good job of keeping terms clear, and sources of views mentioned. I've quoted the text that is the source of the OSC view *serveral* times, and gave my derivation of the "imports closure" version of it twice. I would like, henceforth, to just use OSC in this forum. I think this complies with the spirit of your request, but you haven't confirmed that. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 19:00:35 UTC