Hi, I will take a close look at the paper as soon as I can. As a minor procedural point, however, and this is /not/ a rethorical question: am I the only one to find it a bit odd that we should use this paper for discussion (albeit re-labelled as internal tech report), given that the paper is currently under submission to a special issue, whose editors are amongst the people who are actually involved in the discussion. or is it normal practice -Paolo On 16/10/2010 17:12, Daniel Garijo wrote: > Thanks Paulo for the paper. I think it helps to understand better both vocabularies. > If OPM is not the right starting point, I think it would be helpful to know what is exactly your proposal to start working towards > a standard. > Maybe this kind of discussion is the right starting point. > Best, > Daniel > > 2010/10/15 Paulo Pinheiro da Silva <paulo@utep.edu <mailto:paulo@utep.edu>> > > It is a shame indeed. > > > Shame that we have had public discussion for 1 year, and you have > written a document, in private, and you only release now, despite > our continuously asking for your input. > > > It took me forever to understand OPM enough to be comfortable to talk about it as I am now. It would be much easier for me to > discuss about OPM if I had more inputs regarding how OPM compares to PML. > > Regarding the fact of doing it privately, I please ask you to see this as an initial effort of coming up with something more > substantial than just a superficial mapping between the languages. Otherwise, we would end up where we are right now in terms > of truly understanding each other approaches. > > Many thanks, > Paulo. >
Received on Sunday, 17 October 2010 14:47:33 UTC