On 2010/7/1 22:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yves Raimond wrote:
Hello Kingsley!
[snip]
IMHO an emphatic NO.
RDF is about constructing structured descriptions where "Subjects" have
Identifiers in the form of Name References (which may or many
resolve to
Structured Representations of Referent
On 2010/7/1 22:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:
Hondros, Constantine wrote:
Thanks,
Hondros,
I am always looking out for datasets that will make management sit up and take notice of the LOD cloud (my organisation is a *large* global publisher).
Ditto!
UK and US government datasets have raised awareness that something is
happening, b
Thanks,
I am always looking out for datasets that will make management sit up and take
notice of the LOD cloud (my organisation is a *large* global publisher). UK and
US government datasets have raised awareness that something is happening, but
there's nothing like seeing the competition getting
Dan Brickley wrote:
[snip]
This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated
into talk of accusations and insults.
I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way
to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email
discussion, it might be worth
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for
>> a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow...
>
> Yeah, maybe some of us could meet up in some
On 7/2/2010 12:00 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
Or maybe we should all just take a weekend break, mull things over for
a couple of days, and start fresh on monday? That's my plan anyhow...
Yeah, maybe some of us could meet up in some sunny place and sit in an
office, maybe at Stanford - just like
[snip]
This is the second time in a few hours that a thread has degenerated
into talk of accusations and insults.
I don't care who started it. Sometimes email just isn't the best way
to communicate. If people are feeling this way about an email
discussion, it might be worth the respective parties
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan w
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:39 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> >> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice
> >> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other
> >> serializations of N3 to
On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
While this may be possible, you've promoted owl:sameAs to have a
true
semantic relationship at this level. You're treating it as if it
really do
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
>
> So similarly with RDF stores. Is it not feasible that one may come up with
> just in time
> storage mechanisms, where the triple store could start analyising how the
> data was used in
> order then to optimise the layout of the data on dis
Paul, please keep these thoughts coming. I have a couple of followups,
inline below.
On Jul 2, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
Here are some of my thoughts
(1) The global namespace in RDF plus the concept that "most
knowledge can be efficiently represented with triples" are
brillian
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
>
>> While this may be possible, you've promoted owl:sameAs to have a true
>> semantic relationship at this level. You're treating it as if it
>> really does mean "equals".
>
> Well, it does mean th
On Jul 2, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Paul Gearon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer
wrote:
Serialization formats could support
"Jo" :nameOf :Jo
as a shortcut for
[ owl:sameAs "Jo"; :nameOf :Jo]
and a store could (internally) store the latter as
"Jo" :nameOf :Jo
for compac
On 2 Jul 2010, at 17:07, Paul Houle wrote:
> ow, if hardware cost was no object, I suppose I could keep triples in a
> huge distributed main-memory database. Right now, I can't afford that.
> (If I get richer and if hardware gets cheaper, I'll probably want to
> handle more data, putting me
On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes w
Here are some of my thoughts
(1) The global namespace in RDF plus the concept that "most knowledge can be
efficiently represented with triples" are brilliant; in the long term we're
going to see these two concepts diffuse into non-RDF systems because they
are so powerful. I appreciate the way mu
will look into ISO Common Logic to get familiar then - fwiw so long as
it supports everything RDF Semantics supports, and allows graph
literals, I'm easy and can change at any time :)
Pat Hayes wrote:
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in that
direction, I would va
Well, N3 is just predicate logic done badly. If we want to move in
that direction, I would vastly prefer extending RDF to ISO Common
Logic, or something based on it.
Pat
On Jul 2, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, yo
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/
Dan Brickley wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Hammond, Tony wrote:
Hi Kingsley:
Kill me with the PDF URL :-(
I think we could have been a tad more gracious here. This kind of remark
only serves to alienate the well intentioned.
You know, it's not actually (yet) a crime
> There's RDF/XML XMP hidden inside the file, talking of XMP. Presumably
It's not actually 'hidden', as I'm sure you know. It's at a very public (and
ISO standardized) location. It's just not that accessible as the PDF spec is
rather complex. But there are also published heuristics for simply sca
Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 15:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
I think, the main confusion comes from the use of the term "object" for two
entirely different things: In the case of "O-R-O", it refers to (semantic)
individuals. In the case of "S-P-O", it refers to a position in a
(syntact
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Hammond, Tony wrote:
> Hi Kingsley:
>
>> Kill me with the PDF URL :-(
>
> I think we could have been a tad more gracious here. This kind of remark
> only serves to alienate the well intentioned.
>
> You know, it's not actually (yet) a crime to put out a PDF on the o
Hammond, Tony wrote:
Hi Kingsley:
Kill me with the PDF URL :-(
I think we could have been a tad more gracious here. This kind of remark
only serves to alienate the well intentioned.
You know, it's not actually (yet) a crime to put out a PDF on the open Web.
Yes, it may not be the mos
Michael Schneider wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF?
O-R-O reflects what you've just described.
Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you
have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O.
"Subject" has implici
Hi Kingsley:
> Kill me with the PDF URL :-(
I think we could have been a tad more gracious here. This kind of remark
only serves to alienate the well intentioned.
You know, it's not actually (yet) a crime to put out a PDF on the open Web.
Yes, it may not be the most "webby" of document formats b
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
Another reason why the SW is failing:
You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you
are missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow,
because they did not consider that they could fly. Or if they did
think of that it was ju
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:01 AM, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>
> On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
>>not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
>
> Well, I think the "broader perspective" that the
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 5:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:39, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Good point. But the basic tools to handle data have been around for
a long time.
The web could only get going in the 90ies when
1) Windows 95 become (A GUI) wide
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick
Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your
Bob Ferris wrote:
Hi Ian,
Am 02.07.2010 12:26, schrieb Ian Davis:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bob Ferris wrote:
Hi Ian,
But now people are seeing some of
the data being made available in browseable form e.g. at data.gov.uk
or dbpedia and saying, "I want to make one of those".
I don'
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>So why: Subject-Predicate-Object (SPO) everywhere re. RDF?
>
>O-R-O reflects what you've just described.
>
>Like many of the RDF oddities (playing out nicely in this thread), you
>have an O-R-O but everyone talks about S-P-O.
>
>"Subject" has implicit meaning, it lends its
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 12:42 +0200, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Yves,
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
> > I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
> > removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
> > an issue since 2000:
> > http:/
Patrick Durusau wrote:
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick
Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument
tha
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer
wrote:
> Serialization formats could support
>
> "Jo" :nameOf :Jo
>
> as a shortcut for
>
> [ owl:sameAs "Jo"; :nameOf :Jo]
>
> and a store could (internally) store the latter as
>
> "Jo" :nameOf :Jo
>
> for compactness and efficiency.
While thi
Bob Ferris wrote:
Hi Ian,
> But now people are seeing some of
the data being made available in browseable form e.g. at data.gov.uk
or dbpedia and saying, "I want to make one of those".
I don't really believe that people would say after browsing dbpedia "I
want to make one of those".
s/peo
Hi Richard!
>
> [trimmed cc list]
>
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>
>> I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
>> removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
>> an issue since 2000:
>> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#r
On 2 Jul 2010, at 13:20, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Another reason why the SW is failing:
It is not failing, it is growing from strength to strength.
>
>> You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are
>> missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses w
On 02.07.2010 12:53:11, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is
>not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*.
Yes, full agreement here. That's why the thread felt so weird to me,
I think the entire focus is wrong. But
Hi all,
The MediaEvent Services GmbH, one of our spin-offs, is looking for a
Semantic Web Developer (m/f) in Berlin for a joint project with the
Web-based Systems Group at Freie Unviersität Berlin and ontoprise GmbH,
Karlsruhe, within the scope of Vulcan Inc.'s Project Halo.
The SMW-LDE project e
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote
Hi all,
we are happy to announce the second version of the Silk - Link Discovery
Framework for the Web of Data.
The Web of Data is built upon two simple ideas: Employ the RDF data model to
publish structured data on the Web and to set explicit RDF links between
entities within different data sour
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 7:11 AM, Henry Story wrote:
Well, I am not so sure that we need to "rewire the brain of millions of
people." so much as we need to have our technologies adapt to them. Yes?
When it was discovered that the earth was round, the brains of everyone on
earth had to
Henry,
Another reason why the SW is failing:
You don't see it as a need because you don't think of the options you are
missing. Like people in 1800 did not think horses were slow, because they did
not consider that they could fly. Or if they did think of that it was just as a
dream.
Or clos
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:51, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Henry,
>
> On 7/2/2010 5:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:39, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Good point. But the basic tools to handle data have been around for a long
>>> time.
>>>
>> The web could only get going in
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:49, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Henry,
>
> On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau
wrote:
>>
On 2 Jul 2010, at 12:42, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Yves,
>
> [trimmed cc list]
>
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
>> I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
>> removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
>> an issue since 20
Hi Benjamin,
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:01, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
Our problem is not lack of features (native literal subjects? c'mon!).
It is identifying the individual user stories in our broad community
and marketing respective solution bundles. The RDFa and LOD folks
have demonstrated that this i
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 5:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:39, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Good point. But the basic tools to handle data have been around for a long time.
The web could only get going in the 90ies when
1) Windows 95 become (A GUI) widely deployed and relativ
Hi Richard,
> Such
work can not be realistically done within W3C for obvious reasons. It
has to be done outside W3C by the community.
I believe that's what the "normal/standard" web developers (I think
Henry Story called them "Web Monkeys" ;) ) do already, or?
Cheers,
Bob
Henry,
On 7/2/2010 6:03 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investme
Hi Ian,
Am 02.07.2010 12:26, schrieb Ian Davis:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bob Ferris wrote:
Hi Ian,
But now people are seeing some of
the data being made available in browseable form e.g. at data.gov.uk
or dbpedia and saying, "I want to make one of those".
I don't really believe th
Hi Yves,
[trimmed cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:15, Yves Raimond wrote:
I am not arguing for each vendor to implement that. I am arguing for
removing this arbitrary limitation from the RDF spec. Also marked as
an issue since 2000:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects
On 02/07/2010 05:36, "Pat Hayes" wrote:
> In OWL-DL it is so restricted. Emphasis on the DL. So, don't use
> owl:sameAs. Use your own propietary sameAs; it needn't even be
> symmetric. We are after all taking RDF here, not OWL-DL. And in the
> case under discussion (keeping Jeremy from losing tho
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bob Ferris wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
>> But now people are seeing some of
>>
>> the data being made available in browseable form e.g. at data.gov.uk
>> or dbpedia and saying, "I want to make one of those".
>
> I don't really believe that people would say after browsing db
[trimming cc list]
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:19, Patrick Durusau wrote:
As I say in another post, I am not suggesting I have an alternative
but am suggesting that we broaden the conversation to more than "we
have invested so much so we have to be right" sort of reasoning.
The argument that Ian a
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:39 +0100, Ian Davis wrote:
> I would prefer to see this kind of effort put into n3 as a general
> logic expression system and superset of RDF that perhaps we can move
> towards once we have achieved mainstream with the core data expression
> in RDF. I'd like to see 5 or 6 a
Hi Ian,
> But now people are seeing some of
the data being made available in browseable form e.g. at data.gov.uk
or dbpedia and saying, "I want to make one of those".
I don't really believe that people would say after browsing dbpedia "I
want to make one of those". That's not the User Experie
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
>>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur co
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:57, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
>>> investment by vendors =
>>>
>>>
>> I think I just an
Pat Hayes wrote:
>It is also important to distinguish changes which actually harm your
>code, and changes which simply make it less complete. Allowing literal
>subjects will not invalidate your engines in any way: it will simply
>mean that there will be some RDF out there which they may be unable
On 2 Jul 2010, at 11:39, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
> Good point. But the basic tools to handle data have been around for a long
> time.
The web could only get going in the 90ies when
1) Windows 95 become (A GUI) widely deployed and relatively stable and had
support for threads
2) modems
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
investment by vendors =
I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me
know if not!
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 5:25 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
Patrick,
Without disputing your wider point that HTML hit the sweet point of
usability and utility I will dispute the following:
HTML 3.2 did have:
1) *A need perceived by users as needing to be met*
Did users really know they wanted to
On 2 Jul 2010, at 09:39, Ian Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
>> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
>> who have based their assumptions upon no cha
Pat,
On 7/1/2010 11:14 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
That is fine. Nobody mandates that your (or anyone else's) software
must be able to handle all cases of RDF. But to impose an irrational
limitation on a standard just because someone has spent a lot of money
is a very bad way to make progress,
On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 08:50 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> [cc's trimmed]
>
> I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
>
> If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
> (a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
> (b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that
Yves,
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Yves Raimond wrote:
> First: this is *not* a dirty hack.
>
> "Brickley" bif:contains "ckley" is a perfectly valid thing to say.
>
You could, today, use data: URIs to represent literals with no change
to any RDF system.
Ian
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
> investment by vendors =
>
I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me
know if not!
Ian
Ian
Pat Hayes wrote:
>Just to clarify, this is a purely syntactic restriction. Allowing
>literals in subject position would require **no change at all** to the
>RDF semantics.
Indeed.
And this is probably one of the reasons why several RDF-related standards
have already adopted literal subjects. So
Patrick,
Without disputing your wider point that HTML hit the sweet point of
usability and utility I will dispute the following:
> HTML 3.2 did have:
>
> 1) *A need perceived by users as needing to be met*
>
Did users really know they wanted to link documents together to form a
world wide web? I
Ian,
On 7/2/2010 3:39 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions upon no change
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> In fact, a question I would like to ask, but suspect that noone who can
> answer it is still reading this thread ( :-) ):
> For those who implement RDF stores, do you have to do something special to
> reject RDF that has literals as subject?
I
Hello Ivan!
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Ivan Mikhailov
wrote:
> Hello Yves,
>
>> > It's a virtuoso function surfaced as a predicate.
>> > "magic predicate" was an initial moniker used at creation time.
>> > "bif:contains" doesn't exist in pure triple form etc..
>>
>> Why couldn't it? For exam
Dan,
A somewhat longer response with references to some of the discussion on
the list yesterday.
On 7/1/2010 6:30 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
Hi Patrick,
I don't know what else to call the US Department of Defense mandating the
use of SGML for defense contracts. That is certainly "real-w
On 01.07.2010 22:44:48, Pat Hayes wrote:
>Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
>not from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs
Well, I think the "broader perspective" that the RDF workshop
failed to consider is exactly companies' costs and
[cc's trimmed]
I'm with Jeremy here, the problem's economic not technical.
If we could introduce subjects-as-literals in a way that:
(a) doesn't invalidate any existing RDF, and
(b) doesn't permit the generation of RDF/XML that existing applications cannot
parse,
then I think there's a possib
Nathan wrote:
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but
not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by
those
who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your
Ian Davis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took
a
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Jeremy, your argument is perfectly sound from your company's POV, but not
> from a broader perspective. Of course, any change will incur costs by those
> who have based their assumptions upon no change happening. Your company took
> a risk, appare
82 matches
Mail list logo
