Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan wrote:
> Jonathan Borden scripsit:
> > I don't mean to imply that you as a person are not a "major player" but
> > since you are using your microsoft.com email, I will assume that you are
> > speaking in your capacity as an employee of Microsoft.
> That is *never* a wise thing to do for an employee of *anybody* at all.
> General disclaimer: unless otherwise marked in the email, *nothing*
> I say represents the opinion of Reuters Health even presuming that it
> has one, or Reuters as a whole, or anybody else but me.
and Joshua Allen added:
>Yep, same here. Opinions about "the semantic web" within Microsoft are
> quite diverse; my perspective is nowhere near representative.
Fair enough. I want to reinterate that I don't mean to attack Joshua
personally in the least. I respect his opinions, they are (mostly :-) well
The exchange at the end of last week got a bit more heated than was
indicated -- we are just having _yet another_ argument about URIs after all,
it's not like this has any real meaning -- but it seems that arguing about
URIs does this to the best of us... I think getting URIs straight is
actually one of the more important questions we can discuss about the Web in
general so I am willing to spend more than a few cycles trying to get it
I also think that this discussion spilled over from another discussion on
www-tag, and may have come as if from out of the blue to xml-dev folks so
following this I will send another message with my views on URIs and
nameing -- and if you are entirely too tired of this conversation feel free
to kill my next message...