W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:09:45 -0500 (EST)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203220749170.3166-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
> Subject: Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?)
> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:14:50 +0100
> > Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >
> > >>[1]
> > >>
> > > http://www-lti.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/~clu/papers/archive/lutzdiss.pdf
> > >
> > > I don't think I have time to read 225 pages ... :(
> > >
> > > Is there a shorter version of the central argument?
> >
> >
> > Jeremy,
> >
> > This is a well known proof method called "proof by intimidation" :-)
> >
> > Frank.
> >     ----
> Frank is dancing around an important point, and one that has, I believe,
> not been adequately addressed in this working group.
> We have all (except, maybe, the alternates) signed up to spend a
> significant amount of time on the affairs of this working group.  I believe
> that it is common knowledge that the minimum amount of time that a working
> group member should be devoting to the working group is one day per week.
> So I do not think that anyone should find it onerous to be pointed to a
> Ph.D. thesis that contains the most-complete description of information
> related to the activities of the working group.  If there is a shorter
> version, then fine, and working group members should expect to be told
> about it.  However, there should be no complaints, even in jest, nor should
> there be claims of intimidation, even in jest.  If a working group member
> cares about the issue, then that member should be prepared to put in the
> effort to understand it.

One day a week can soon be eaten up just trying to track the mailing list.

WG members can't simply demand that fellow WG members read huge PhD docs
and appeal to W3C Process. If you want people to spent 2+ hours on some
task, you either need to pay them or persuade them.

If some WG member were to demand that *you* had to read the complete works
of Derrida to understand their WG position, it would be reasonable for you
to ask why, for a (pointer to a) summary of the key points etc. I doubt
you'd scurry off to buy the books without more than a little persuasion.

We're fortunate to be part of a pretty civilised and collaborative effort,
where most suggested reading pointers are useful, interesting, relevant.
Nevertheless, we need to be realistic about the time constraints everyone
is working under. Pointers into the literature are great, but they're not
a substitute for making clear and consise arguments on this list.


Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 08:09:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC