Al,
"I'm afraid that if we want to be part of a serious and professional discussion
based on scientific and logical concepts, we obviously need to make a clear and
complete argument (or question)."
Talking about being profesional: you still claim on your website and in your
papers that your papers are accepted for publication in the proceedings of the
PLoP conferences (and ACM DL). This is not true, as you never showed up (two
times) and therefore your papers weren't discussed in the workshops and
therefore not published in the proceedings.
Furthermore I have the same comments on your work which I also had during the
last discussion on this list: your work misses any real (empirical) background
(which I expect from a professional, think at least about the Rule of Three,
there furthermore exists a large body of literature on Concepts, which you do
not mention at all), your patterns suffer strongly from the world-peace syndrom
and nearly all of your strong claims are unsupported ("The information pattern
family can provide comparable capabilities to the ones provided by
multithreaded and distributed applications/processes, while at the same time
improving overall complexity, decoupling, encapsulation, reusability and
scalability. As a consequence, software engineering processes are also improved
in terms of reliability, cost, implementation timeframes and so forth.").
Usually I'm more than willing to help, but as I (and others) already did put
quite a lot of energy in giving you feedback, which imho. has not been
considered seriously, I do not see a reason why I should do it again.
Regards,
Christian Köppe
________________________________
Van: [email protected]
[[email protected]] namens Messaging Design Pattern
[[email protected]]
Verzonden: zaterdag 12 mei 2012 22:52
Aan: Ward Cunningham
CC: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Onderwerp: Re: [patterns-discussion] [telecom-patterns] Realistic Information
Model and Concepts
Again, I don't intend to be rude/mean or anything. I'm afraid that if we want
to be part of a serious and professional discussion based on scientific and
logical concepts, we obviously need to make a clear and complete argument (or
question). Commenting without understanding >the complete document< seems
premature (risky): "not enough information associations/concepts to make
informed/logical decisions regarding the matter being studied". Easy way to
miss information and be wrong.
The message requesting feedback was very clear:
"Also, I would appreciate it if you could keep making your questions/comments
as specific as possible. This allows me to send appropriate responses. Feel
free to quote specific sections of the draft."
These 'concepts' should be fairly obvious. Also keep in mind that this is a
draft (looking for feedback). BTW, No point in becoming too personal
(emotional) about matters that are factual/logical/mathematical in nature. It
is good to hear that I didn't make the R-pile (rude pile) then I would be
really worried: ;-). You see, "polite" is a good/obvious concept when dealing
with others. Direct/Straightforward messaging is also best.
In summary, let's focus on the 'Concepts' presented by the paper based on
logical/rational arguments, discussion and questions (obviously).
Regards,
Al
_______________________________________________
patterns-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/patterns-discussion
