[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> stacked up against that (third) view. In any case you are going to
have to
> articulate your view because I see no "FIRE".
I hope you are not once again confusing your local perspective with the
global one. I think that many people see the problem exactly as I have
stated it. I think that many people have understood the many clear
examples I've put forth of why it's crass to overload http: identifiers
like this. If *you* don't, it could mean that you aren't listening
carefully enough, or are incapable of seeing reason. It really doesn't
matter what it means, though, since you aren't the person I have to
convince.
> actual fire. In any case no major "Semantic Web" player advocates
using
Gee, what would it take for me to become a big-time "semantic web
playa"? Silly I'd have thought that one could know who the players are
by their fruits. But I don't see any fruits other then a few
locally-contextual proofs-of-concept, and the people who think HTTP
extends to "infinity and beyond".
When it's so hard to figure out who the true players are, and when
players in any case are usually egotistical and stubborn, I personally
don't regard appeals to the vested authority of players as a valid way
to make decisions.
|
