Are you allowed to describe something you wrote yourself as seminal?
I'm not disputing it's seminality you understand, just wondering about your qualifications to describe it thus. | [reply] |
Are you allowed to describe something you wrote yourself as seminal?
If enough other people (or the *right* other people)
describe it that way first, and if you're bringing
it up in a situation where it is clearly relevant
(or someone else brought it up first), then yes.
Not that it doesn't represent a certain amount of
hubris, of course...
(And no, I don't happen to know in this particular
instance who else may or may not have so described
the item in question first. I was just answering
your question in the general manner in which it
was stated.)
| [reply] |
Actually, I probably misused the word, because I had no idea what it meant until I just looked it up, other than "the thing most people refer to that most clearly defines something".
So, seminal may not apply, but it's still the most clear collection of examples of how Perl parsing is not possible without executing some code, which would have answered your other question had you read it, and if you still haven't, I recommend reading it now.
| [reply] |
Well, it's seminal in the sense that he was the first person who could really be bothered to lay out a few of the main reasons in a readable way in a location that could easily be URL-referenced.
I certainly refer people to it on a regular basis.
| [reply] |
For something to be seminal it only has to be first, and with a thorough literature review one can claim seminality for one's own work.
On a related note, not pertaining to the article in question; it is interesting to note how often "seminal" is confused with "good". There is great value in firsts, but they are frequently not good paragons of their form.
| [reply] |
