- From: Steven J. DeRose <Steven_DeRose@Brown.edu>
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:08:22 -0400
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org
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