Re: XPointer subset minority opinion

At 8:07 AM -0400 5/5/01, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 09:09 AM 5/4/01 -0400, Steven J. DeRose wrote:
>>I find the 'minority opinion' piece objectionable because it makes 
>>several clearly false claims, as well as including several 
>>proposals and pleas rather than limiting itself to expressing 
>>opinion or position.
>>
>>I thus believe it is necessary for the WG to issue a majority 
>>rationale statement, lest inaccurate and misleading statements be 
>>accepted for lack of less partisan information.
>
>Those of us outside the WG might like to see what FIXptr is, in 
>order that we might evaluate 'inaccurate and misleading' and 
>'partisan' for ourselves.

I heartily approve of that; indeed I intended to post a thorough 
analysis of it yesterday until I realized that the authors' link to 
their own work was to the members-only area. Thus I couldn't very 
well post an analysis without potentially breaking confidentiality. 
It seems odd to me for someone to submit an opinion to a public list, 
without having put their proposal that it is about, anywhere public 
(at least, nowhere I could find even after a lot of Web searching). 
But since they did, it unfortunately generates the impression of 
controversy without the ability to resolve it.

It also seems from their paper, that they have made changes after the 
decision on their (already 12th-hour) proposal. Showing the actual 
proposal that was made and rejected would seem more appropriate.

I have no doubt that an informed analysis of the proposal will reject 
it, as you can conclude happened in the WG (from the fact the paper 
calls itself a "minority" opinion, and from the small number of 
signers to it).


-- 
Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu; http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chief Scientist, Brown Univ. Scholarly Technology Group
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science

Received on Saturday, 5 May 2001 11:09:25 UTC