Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW

No. Let them keep discussing. I want to see where this is going.

If this thread is annoying, then archive it, filter it, mute it... email has
a lot of options now a days :)

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>wrote:

> As fascinating as this discussion is, maybe the two of you want to
> work it out directly and then report back with a summary?
>
> Speaking as just one subscriber's data point, of course, I'm...
>
> -Patrick
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
> wrote:
> > Kingsley,
> >
> > Correction: I have never accused you of being modest or of not being an
> > accountant. ;-)
> >
> > Nor have I said the costs you talk about in your accountant voice don't
> > exist.
> >
> > The problem is identifying the cost to a particular client, say of email
> > spam, versus the cost the solution for the same person.
> >
> > For example, I picked a spam article at random that says a 100 person
> firm
> > *could be losing* as much as $55,000 per year due to spam.
> >
> > Think about that for a minute. That works out to $550 per person.
> >
> > So, if your solution costs more than $550 per person, it isn't worth
> buying.
> >
> > Besides, the $550 per person *isn't on the books.* Purchasing your
> solution
> > is. As they say, spam is a hidden cost. Hidden costs are hard to quantify
> or
> > get people to address.
> >
> > Not to mention that your solution requires an investment before the
> software
> > can exist for any benefit. That is an even harder sell.
> >
> > Isn't investment to enable a return from another investment (software,
> > later) something accountants can see?
> >
> > Hope you are having a great day!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > PS: The random spam article:
> >
> http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/the_big_cost_of_spam_viruses_for_small_business/
> >
> >
> > On 8/19/2011 9:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/19/11 6:37 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Kingsley,
> >>>
> >>> One more attempt.
> >>>
> >>> The "press release" I pointed to was an example that would have to be
> >>> particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of
> integration,
> >>> then showing *their* savings.
> >>
> >> Yes, and I sent you a link to a collection of similar documents from
> which
> >> you could find similar research depending on problem type. On the first
> page
> >> you should have seen a link to a research document about the cost of
> email
> >> spam, for instance.
> >>
> >> CEO, CIOs, CTOs are all dealing with costs of:
> >>
> >> 1. Spam
> >> 2. Password Management
> >> 3. Security
> >> 4. Data Integration.
> >>
> >> There isn't a shortage of market research material re. the above and
> their
> >> costs across a plethora of domains.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The difference in our positions, from my "context," is that I am saying
> >>> the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their*
> bottom
> >>> line, over the next quarter, six months, year.
> >>
> >> For what its worth I worked for many years as an accountant before I
> >> crossed over to the vendor realm during the early days of Open Systems
> --
> >> when Unix was being introduced to enterprises. That's the reason why
> >> integration middleware and dbms technology has been my passion for 20+
> >> years. I am a slightly different profile to what you assume in your
> comments
> >> re. cost-benefits analysis.
> >>
> >>> I "hear" (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global
> >>> benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for
> their
> >>> bottom line in any definite period.
> >>
> >> See comment above. I live problems first, then architect technology to
> >> solve them. When I tell you about the costs of data integration to
> >> enterprises I am basically telling you that I've lived the problem for
> many
> >> years. My understanding is quite deep. Sorry, but this isn't an area
> when I
> >> can pretend to be modest :-)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million
> organic
> >>> and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the
> incentive for
> >>> any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data?
> >>
> >> I think the issue is more about: what would identifiers provide to this
> >> organization with regards to the obvious need to virtualize its critical
> >> data sources such that:
> >>
> >> 1. data sources are represented as fine grained data objects
> >> 2. every data object is endowed with an identifier
> >> 3. identifiers become superkey that provide conduits highly navigable
> data
> >> object based zeitgeists -- a single identifier should resolve to graph
> >> pictorial representing all data associated with that specific identifier
> and
> >> and additional data that has been reconciled logically e.g., leverage
> >> owl:sameAs and IFP (inverse functional property) logic.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing
> in
> >>> a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit
> as
> >>> well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and
> >>> resources.)
> >>
> >> Kingsley
> >>>
> >>> Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!
> >>>
> >>> Patrick
> >>>
> >>> On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kingsley,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers.
> >>>>
> >>>> My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The
> >>>> collection contains links for a variety of research documents.
> >>>>
> >>>>> People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what
> >>>>> use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft
> numbers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Er. and you posted a link to a press release. What's your point?
> >>>>
> >>>>> They have no relationship to any reality that I share.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you posted an Informatica press release to make some kind of
> point.
> >>>> Or am I completely misreading and misunderstanding the purpose of that
> URL
> >>>> too?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's been enjoyable as usual but without some common basis for
> >>>>> discussion we aren't going to get any closer to a common
> understanding.
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Kingsley
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hope you are having a great week!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Patrick
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/18/2011 3:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/18/11 2:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kingsley,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 8/18/2011 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/18/11 1:40 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Kingsley,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From below:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This critical value only materializes via appropriate "context
> >>>>>>>>>> lenses". For decision makers it is always via opportunity costs.
>  If someone
> >>>>>>>>>> else is eating you lunch by disrupting your market you simply
> have to
> >>>>>>>>>> respond. Thus, on this side of the fence its better to focus on
> eating lunch
> >>>>>>>>>> rather than warning about the possibility of doing so, or
> outlining how it
> >>>>>>>>>> could be done. Just do it!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I appreciate the sentiment, "Just do it!" as my close friend Jack
> >>>>>>>>> Park says it fairly often.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But "Just do it!" doesn't answer the question of cost/benefit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that
> takes
> >>>>>>>> advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble
> with the
> >>>>>>>> Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and
> postulating.
> >>>>>>>> Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his mindset was:
> just do it!
> >>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Still dodging the question I see. ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You want market research numbers, see the related section at the end
> >>>>>> of this reply. I sorta assumed you would have found this
> serendipitously
> >>>>>> though? Ah! You don't quite believe in the utility of this Linked
> Data stuff
> >>>>>> etc..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It avoids it in favor of advocacy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> See my comments above. You are skewing my comments to match you
> >>>>>>>> desired outcome, methinks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You reach that conclusion pretty frequently.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See my earlier comment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I ask for hard numbers, you say that isn't your question and/or
> >>>>>>> skewing your comments.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. I didn't know this was about market research and numbers [1].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to
> >>>>>>>>> solve this problem?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I assume you know the costs of the above.
> >>>>>>>> It won't cost north of a billion dollars to make a WebID based
> >>>>>>>> solution. In short, such a thing has existed for a long time,
> depending on
> >>>>>>>> your "context lenses" .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I assume everyone here is familiar with:
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID
> >>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So we need to take the number of users who have a WebID and
> subtract
> >>>>>>> that from the number of FaceBook users.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Take the number of people that have are members of a service that's
> >>>>>> ambivalent to the self calibration of the vulnerabilities of its
> members
> >>>>>> aka. privacy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The remaining number need a WebID or some substantial portion, yes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ultimately they need a WebID absolutely! And do you know why? It
> will
> >>>>>> enable members begin the inevitable journey towards self calibration
> of
> >>>>>> their respective vulnerabilities.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hope you understand that society is old and the likes of G+, FB
> are
> >>>>>> new and utterly immature. In society, one is innocent until proven
> guilty or
> >>>>>> not guilty. In the world of FB and G+ the fundamentals of society
> are
> >>>>>> currently being inverted. Anyone can ultimately say anything about
> you. Both
> >>>>>> parties are building cyber police states via their respective silos.
> Grr...
> >>>>>> don't get me going on this matter.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Every single netizen needs a verifiable identifier. That's the
> bottom
> >>>>>> line, and WebID (courtesy of Linked Data) and Trust Semantics nails
> the
> >>>>>> issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So who bears that cost? Each of those users? It cost each of them
> >>>>>>> something to get a WebID. Yes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Look here is a real world example. Just google up on wire shark re.
> >>>>>> Facebook and Google. Until the wire shark episodes both peddled lame
> excuses
> >>>>>> for not using HTTPS. Today both use HTTPS. Do you want to know why?
> Simple
> >>>>>> answer: opportunity cost of not doing so became palpable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is their benefit from getting that WebID? Will it outweigh
> their
> >>>>>>> cost in their eyes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See comment above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We've already witnessed Craigslist horrors. But all of this is
> child's
> >>>>>> play if identity isn't fixed on the InterWeb. If you think I need to
> give
> >>>>>> you market numbers for that too, then I think we are simply talking
> past
> >>>>>> ourselves (a common occurence).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then, what increase in revenue will result from solving it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> FB -- less vulnerability and bleed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Startups or Smartups: massive opportunity to make sales by solving
> a
> >>>>>>>> palpable problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why
> >>>>>>>>> doesn't G+ solve the problem?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> G+ is trying to do just that, but in the wrong Web dimension.
> That's
> >>>>>>>> why neither G+ nor FB have been able to solve the identity
> reconciliation
> >>>>>>>> riddle.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe you share your observations with G and FB. ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmm. wondering how you've concluded either way :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Seriously, I don't think they are as dumb as everyone seems to
> think.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I haven't characterized them as dumb. I would put this in the
> careless
> >>>>>> and ambivalent bucket.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It may well be they have had this very discussion and decided it
> >>>>>>> isn't cost effective to address.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See my earlier comments. Or just look at the G+ "real names"
> >>>>>> imbroglio.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are privacy controls are a non-problem?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your "context lenses."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> True, you can market a product/service that no one has ever seen
> >>>>>>>>> before. Like pet rocks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And they "just did it!"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> With one important difference.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Their *doing it* did not depend upon the gratuitous efforts of
> >>>>>>>>> thousands if not millions of others.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Don't quite get your point. I am talking about a solution that
> >>>>>>>> starts off with identity reconciliation, passes through access
> control
> >>>>>>>> lists, and ultimately makes virtues of heterogeneous data
> virtualization
> >>>>>>>> clearer re. data integration pain alleviation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the above we have a market place north of 100 Billion Dollars.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, but your solution: "...starts off with identity
> >>>>>>> reconciliation..."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See comments above about WebID and Trust Logic. It just another way
> of
> >>>>>> referring to the issues that have resulted in outputs from the
> Semantic Web
> >>>>>> Project.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure, start with the critical problem already solved and you really
> >>>>>>> are at a "...market place north of 100 Billion Dollars...", but
> that is all
> >>>>>>> in your imagination.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See my earlier comments. And for your numbers, see links below.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Having a system of assigned and reconciled WebIDs isn't a zero cost
> >>>>>>> to users or businesses solution. It is going to cost someone to
> assign and
> >>>>>>> reconcile those WebIDs. Yes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can buy a solution that post installation will make and
> reconcile
> >>>>>> all kinds of identifiers including those that serve are WebIDs for
> humans or
> >>>>>> agents.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since it is your solution, may I ask who is going to pay that cost?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Companies have been paying for it already, for quite some time :-) I
> >>>>>> am not speculating, simply sharing perspective re. what commercial
> >>>>>> opportunities exist when you grok the Semantic Web Project stack and
> the
> >>>>>> application of its output to solutions that solve real problems.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Isn't that an important distinction?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, and one that has never been lost on me :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Interested to hear your answer since that distinction has never
> been
> >>>>>>> lost on you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Links:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. http://www.delicious.com/kidehen/market_research -- I am sure
> you
> >>>>>> can filter through
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kingsley
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Patrick
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kingsley
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hope you are having a great day!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Patrick
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 8/18/2011 10:54 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/11 10:25 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Kingsley,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your characterization of "problems" is spot on:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/18/2011 9:01 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Linked Data addresses many real world problems. The trouble is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that problems are subjective. If you have experienced a
> problem it doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exist. If you don't understand a problem it doesn't exist. If
> you don't know
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a problem exists then again it doesn't exist in you context.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But you left out: The recognized "problem" must *cost more*
> than
> >>>>>>>>>>> the cost of addressing it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Now in my case I assumed the above to be implicit when
> >>>>>>>>>> context is about a solution or solutions :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If a solution costs more than the problem, it is a problem^n
> >>>>>>>>>> matter. No good.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A favorable cost/benefit ratio has to be recognized by the
> people
> >>>>>>>>>>> being called upon to make the investment in solutions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Always! Investment evaluation 101 for any business oriented
> >>>>>>>>>> decision maker.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That is recognition of a favorable cost/benefit ratio by the
> W3C
> >>>>>>>>>>> and company is insufficient.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes-ish. And here's why. Implementation cost is a tricky factor,
> >>>>>>>>>> one typically glossed over in marketing communications that more
> often than
> >>>>>>>>>> not blind side decision makers; especially those that are
> extremely
> >>>>>>>>>> technically challenged. Note, when I say "technically
> challenged" I am not
> >>>>>>>>>> referring to programming skills. I am referring to basic
> understanding of
> >>>>>>>>>> technology as it applies to a given domain e.g. the enterprise.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Back to the W3C and "The Semantic Web Project". In this case,
> the
> >>>>>>>>>> big issue is that degree of unobtrusive delivery hasn't been a
> leading
> >>>>>>>>>> factor -- bar SPARQL where its deliberate SQL proximity is all
> about
> >>>>>>>>>> unobtrusive implementation and adoption. Ditto R2RML .
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> RDF is an example of a poorly orchestrated revolution at the
> >>>>>>>>>> syntax level that is implicitly obtrusive at adoption and
> implementation
> >>>>>>>>>> time. It is in this context I agree fully with you. There was a
> >>>>>>>>>> misconception that RDF would be adopted like HTML, just like
> that. As we can
> >>>>>>>>>> all see today, that never happened and will never happened via
> revolution.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What can happen, unobtrusively, is the use and appreciation of
> >>>>>>>>>> solutions that generate Linked Data (expressed using a variety
> of syntaxes
> >>>>>>>>>> and serialized in a variety of formats). That's why we've
> invested so much
> >>>>>>>>>> time in both Linked Data Middleware and DBMS technology for
> ingestion,
> >>>>>>>>>> indexing, querying, and serialization.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For the umpteenth time here are three real world problems
> >>>>>>>>>>>> addressed effectively by Linked Data courtesy of AWWW
> (Architecture of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> World Wide Web):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Verifiable Identifiers -- as delivered via WebID
> (leveraging
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trust Logic and FOAF)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Access Control Lists -- an application of WebID and Web
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Access Control Ontology
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Heterogeneous Data Access and Integration -- basically
> taking
> >>>>>>>>>>>> use beyond the limits of ODBC, JDBC etc..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's apply the items above to some contemporary solutions
> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> illuminate the costs of not addressing the above:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. G+ -- the "real name" debacle is WebID 101 re. pseudonyms,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> synonyms, and anonymity
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Facebook -- all the privacy shortcomings boil down to not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding the power of InterWeb scale verifiable
> identifiers and access
> >>>>>>>>>>>> control lists
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Twitter -- inability to turn Tweets into structured
> >>>>>>>>>>>> annotations that are basically nano-memes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Email, Comment, Pingback SPAM -- a result of not being able
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to verify identifiers
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Precision Find -- going beyond the imprecision of Search
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Engines whereby subject attribute and properties are used to
> contextually
> >>>>>>>>>>>> discover relevant things (explicitly or serendipitously).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The problem isn't really a shortage of solutions, far from it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For the sake of argument only, conceding these are viable
> >>>>>>>>>>> solutions, the question is:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do they provide more benefit than they cost?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. They do, unequivocally.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If that can't be answered favorably, in hard currency (or some
> >>>>>>>>>>> other continuum of value that appeals to particular investors),
> no one is
> >>>>>>>>>>> going to make the investment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Economics 101.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This critical value only materializes via appropriate "context
> >>>>>>>>>> lenses". For decision makers it is always via opportunity costs.
>  If someone
> >>>>>>>>>> else is eating you lunch by disrupting your market you simply
> have to
> >>>>>>>>>> respond. Thus, on this side of the fence its better to focus on
> eating lunch
> >>>>>>>>>> rather than warning about the possibility of doing so, or
> outlining how it
> >>>>>>>>>> could be done. Just do it!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That isn't specific to SemWeb but any solution to a problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The solution has to provide a favorable cost/benefit ratio or
> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> won't be adopted. Or at least not widely.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hope you are having a great day!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Patrick
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Durusau
> > patrick@durusau.net
> > Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> > Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> > Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> > Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
> >
> > Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
> > Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
> > Twitter: patrickDurusau
> >
> >
> >
>
>