Re: comments on Euler owl rules (+polite discourse)

On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 21:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Comments on owl-rules.n3,v 1.148 (149?)
> 
> I have taken the liberty of reordering the rules.
> 
> I am completely mystified as to what this is supposed to do.

That remark goes beyond the bounds of polite discourse between
cooperative WG members.

I think you know very well what the rules are supposed to
do. How else could you have offered the constructive
technical criticism that follows?

That sort of remark makes me hesitant to read mail
from you, and hesitant to send contributions to
the WG, lest it provoke such a repsponse from you.
I hear it affects other WG members likewise.
In the interest of us all finishing the work
before us, let's play nicely, OK?

>   It is missing
> huge parts of the OWL semantics, including the comprehension principles.
> It has many errors.
> 
> Comments on specific rules below.
[...]

Thank you for the careful review. It is above and beyond the call
of duty to review Jos's work in addition to the work you're
putting in on the text of the S&AS spec and the discourse
with the reviewers in public-webont-comments.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 13:00:12 UTC