On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7 October 2015 at 04:01, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote: > >> Melvin, I don't know if you actually read any of the discussion around >> the post-type-discovery proposal, but the -1 votes were not actually >> downvoting the algorithm's existence, they were -1s because they had >> clarifying questions. Since this was brought up within minutes of the end >> of the call, I'm not surprised to see the -1s. Anyway, there is now another >> week to review the document and we will discuss it on next week's call. I >> encourage you to join the call if you have an opinion on this. >> > > Thanks for the clarification, Aaron. I dont have a problem with the > algorithm's existence. Im sure it could be useful. It's just not REC > track. > > This problem is already solved via inferencing. IMHO not a good use of > time discussing whether or not to reinvent the wheel. Just use existing > RECs. > > Can you link me to some data that shows where this particular problem is already solved by a REC?
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 03:17:04 UTC