Lists Home |
Date Index |
> > >
> > > My main point is that if any RDF book covers reification and
> > > containers, it
> > > should at least tell the user about the very widely expressed warnings
> > > problems with these constructs, and the fact that many RDF
> > > experts avoid them.
> > > Endless discussion on such topics can be found in the
> > > archives.
> > >
> > > Let's not lead RDF newbies into that foetid sinkhole.
> > >
> > Such concerns for my readers from both you and Jonathan. Warms my heart.
> Hmm. It seems that somehow Jonathan or I touched a raw nerve.
> I'm usially
> not squeamish about fillipping nerves, but it wasn't my intent in
> this case.
> >From reading the thread, I thought you were unaware of the issues with
> reification and containers. I now see that you are indeed aware.
I thought about not sending this to the mailing list because it doesn't add
to anyone's information, but I also wanted to respond in public.
You didn't necessarily touch a nerve, though Jonathan did annoy me by
bringing the book into what was a non-book related discussion.
And one could say that if I am writing a book on the subject, one could hope
that I'm aware of, and researching all aspects of same, couldn't one? And by
implying otherwise, well, this implication could be easily interpreted as
Of course, now, I realize it was no such thing -- just concern on your part
about complete coverage.
> BTW, I re-read Jonathan's post because I was surprised you said
> he had made
> personal attacks in it. I certainly saw no such attacks.
Again, personal interpretation. From the following quotes, one can infer
that a) I misinterpreted the original M&S in my original draft of the book,
and b) that I am not reading the spec in order to write the book. All in
all, it came across as condescension. Additionally, I would hope that I can
contribute to, and comment in, this mailing list without people referencing
my book when it's neither completed nor published yet (though I appreciate
the publicity for same). And I would hope that people will give me a
benefit of a doubt that I will most likely read the spec at some time before
I finish the book. I dunno -- I get kind of funny about this sort of thing.
"It was written specifically to fix ambiguities which have resulted
from interpretations such as yours of the RDF M&S (i.e. old version)"
"Please, if you are writing a book about RDF, don't say these things because
you are just going to confuse anyone and everyone who believes what you say.
You have a particular obligation to thouroughly read
http://www.w3.org/rdf-mt/ . It is a very well written document."
However, not worth this list's time and will retract personal refutation
based on your interpretation, Uche. I'm sure that Jonathon meant no such
personal affront from his original message -- bringing the book in was just
a side note. My mistake.