Re: SUO: RE: Link Grammar and Parser - RRGs
Final words perhaps?
Murray:
> Anyone in particular? If I'm among the lesser qualified I'm happy
> to bow out and let you have the floor.
Surely that is a decision that each individual should be making. I am
*not* attempting to silence contributions, although it may have appeared
so. I was asking for self-evaluations of one's own level of
expertise in particular areas and focusing input corresponding to that.
Perhaps with the option of stating explicitly, perhaps in different
email tracks or sublists, (a) whether one is seeking information and
exploring areas
of interest that one has come across for a variety of application
purposes not immediately proposed as SUO content
or (b) whether one is working on the formalisation of
a particular domain from the inside: as in my case, on language
and linguistic treatments thereof.
If I can place most of the contributions
on language that have been seen on the SUO list in category
(a) then I don't have to worry and can stop mailing such emails.
> You either don't value cooperation or see a lot more of it than I do.
Having spent most of the last 20 years in cooperative projects, I guess
it must be the latter. And what I value the most in cooperative
projects is the bringing together of expertise. None of the projects
I have been involved with has thought of making each member
an expert in everything, nor on reducing discussion to lowest
common denominators. Different team members have different
strengths and must be respected for their input; it helps too when
one knows who knows what. But I don't let my empirical
linguists do the knowledge representation for my ontology, nor do I let my
software folks define goals for linguistic representations. That would
be playing on everyone's weaknesses rather than their
strengths: a curious notion of cooperation.
John B.