Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's be clear. This is NOT an standards issue. As far as I can tell both RFCs
> mentioned tell you WHAT to do. This is good. They do not tell you what you
> should not do; I see no mention of subject lines in either.
There is no standard that I am awa
> "TG" == Ted Guild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TG> I am surprised and sorry that anyone found the page [1] explaining why
TG> we run our lists, and for that matter most of our infrastructure,
TG> according to standards offensive. That was certainly not the intent of
TG> the page, mer
I am surprised and sorry that anyone found the page [1] explaining
why we run our lists, and for that matter most of our infrastructure,
according to standards offensive. That was certainly not the intent
of the page, merely to give a thorough response to a request that has
come up a few times a
What a wonderful (open) world. :-)
Xiaoshu
Duncan Hull wrote:
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
The semantic web stack layered cake put "trust" at the very top.
I thought trust was somewhere near the bottom of the stack? :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/428172848/
or completely absent altogether
Xiaoshu Wang wrote:
The semantic web stack layered cake put "trust" at the very top.
I thought trust was somewhere near the bottom of the stack? :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danbri/428172848/
or completely absent altogether:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/415645490/
Duncan
--
Du
Peter Ansell wrote:
On 15/11/2007, Mark Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Xiaoshu, This is a beautiful synopsis of the problem - THANK YOU for
taking the time to write it up as well as you did! I will be using this
in my lectures for sure! :-)
What made me chuckle was how similar the D
Mark Wilkinson wrote:
Xiaoshu, This is a beautiful synopsis of the problem - THANK YOU for
taking the time to write it up as well as you did! I will be using
this in my lectures for sure! :-)
Thanks for the compliment.
What made me chuckle was how similar the DFDF concept is to the LSID
