« Return to Thread: Splitting vs. Interpreting
RE: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting
by Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
::
Rate this Message:
Xiasho,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@...]
> Sent: 18 June 2009 16:31
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Sean B. Palmer; david@...; www-tag@...
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting
>
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> > Xaioshu,
> >
> >
> >> The real issue is that TAG, for whatever reason that I cannot
> >> understand, refuses to acknowledge such a simple truth: what you get
> >> from a URI is NOT what a URI denotes.
> >>
> >
> > Please will you stop making this claim. You and I have
> > visited this many times [and (no-doubt) bored many people on
> > this list] and agreed that no-one[*] on the TAG holds the
> > view that "what you get from a URI is what a URI denotes".
> > You again start your argument by restating a false-premise,
> > that the TAG holds a position that AFAICT it never held
> > whilst I was a part of it.
> >
> > Stuart
> > --
> > [*] by which I mean that I know of no-one on the TAG that
> > holds the view which you imply.
> >
> I am not implying everyone but I do imply someone because, otherwise, I
> just could not understand: what is the hold up for even an
> open debate?
Well... http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch is pretty clear in its one and only diagram that what is obtained from the web are awww:representation of a resource as opposed to the resource itself. I think that accords with your position.
> I have to file a serious complain in order to get my manuscript accepted
> to the IR-KR2009, which I am glad the PC chairs did. One reviewer, whom
> I was told is a very "well known person" to the web community that they
> must respect, made some very unfair (as far as from I can understand)
> comments. My impression is that the reviewer just simply did not want
> my opinion to be out there.
I can make no comment. However, FWIW as was not involved in the review process at all.
> This makes me very upset because something must be *seriously* wrong.
> Here is what I wrote to the PC chairs of IR-KR2009, I think the problem
> should concern us all.
>
> "I remember Bertrand Russell explained the difference between Religion
> and Philosophy. He said they both differ from science because they are
> all about speculations. But the former appeals to authority and the
> latter to human reason. There are some unhealthy trend in the Web and
> it becomes more religious than philosophical -- this really concerns
> us. One of the purpose of this article is trying to make it right. Not
> that my opinion is right, this is minor but what is important is to
> evaluate alternative opinion through intelligent debate but by
> obedience. It really surprises me that one person has so much power and
> can control even a workshop.
>
> Honestly, I am not simply disappointed. I am actually quite angry and
> seriously concerned -- not for my own sake but for the sake of the Web
> community. Hopefully, we will not turn the Web philosophy into a Web
> religion."
Fair enough... but you cannot make a valid argument by attributing a position to a group that it does not hold (and AFAIK never has).
> Xiaoshu
Stuart
--
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoshu Wang [mailto:wangxiao@...]
> Sent: 18 June 2009 16:31
> To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
> Cc: Sean B. Palmer; david@...; www-tag@...
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Splitting vs. Interpreting
>
> Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
> > Xaioshu,
> >
> >
> >> The real issue is that TAG, for whatever reason that I cannot
> >> understand, refuses to acknowledge such a simple truth: what you get
> >> from a URI is NOT what a URI denotes.
> >>
> >
> > Please will you stop making this claim. You and I have
> > visited this many times [and (no-doubt) bored many people on
> > this list] and agreed that no-one[*] on the TAG holds the
> > view that "what you get from a URI is what a URI denotes".
> > You again start your argument by restating a false-premise,
> > that the TAG holds a position that AFAICT it never held
> > whilst I was a part of it.
> >
> > Stuart
> > --
> > [*] by which I mean that I know of no-one on the TAG that
> > holds the view which you imply.
> >
> I am not implying everyone but I do imply someone because, otherwise, I
> just could not understand: what is the hold up for even an
> open debate?
Well... http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch is pretty clear in its one and only diagram that what is obtained from the web are awww:representation of a resource as opposed to the resource itself. I think that accords with your position.
> I have to file a serious complain in order to get my manuscript accepted
> to the IR-KR2009, which I am glad the PC chairs did. One reviewer, whom
> I was told is a very "well known person" to the web community that they
> must respect, made some very unfair (as far as from I can understand)
> comments. My impression is that the reviewer just simply did not want
> my opinion to be out there.
I can make no comment. However, FWIW as was not involved in the review process at all.
> This makes me very upset because something must be *seriously* wrong.
> Here is what I wrote to the PC chairs of IR-KR2009, I think the problem
> should concern us all.
>
> "I remember Bertrand Russell explained the difference between Religion
> and Philosophy. He said they both differ from science because they are
> all about speculations. But the former appeals to authority and the
> latter to human reason. There are some unhealthy trend in the Web and
> it becomes more religious than philosophical -- this really concerns
> us. One of the purpose of this article is trying to make it right. Not
> that my opinion is right, this is minor but what is important is to
> evaluate alternative opinion through intelligent debate but by
> obedience. It really surprises me that one person has so much power and
> can control even a workshop.
>
> Honestly, I am not simply disappointed. I am actually quite angry and
> seriously concerned -- not for my own sake but for the sake of the Web
> community. Hopefully, we will not turn the Web philosophy into a Web
> religion."
Fair enough... but you cannot make a valid argument by attributing a position to a group that it does not hold (and AFAIK never has).
> Xiaoshu
Stuart
--
« Return to Thread: Splitting vs. Interpreting
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
