Re: Semantic mail

At 05:17 PM 11/7/00 +0100, Greg FitzPatrick wrote:
>For starters all the (public) mailing lists of the W3C or the IETF could 
>be fashioned in this manner.

Surely you jest. "all the...lists...*could be fashioned*..." - come on. Any 
manner of fashioning would invite a "counter-fashioning" by dedicated 
spammers and those others who might just want to jack with you.

Try to imagine how many emails any celebrity might get. It's like one of 
those "ask the president" TV things, there are 7.3 million wannabe 
questioners and only one answerer.

You just have to do your best with what we've got and accept that you're 
going to use the delete key a lot and look for cherished senders, etc.

Don't worry your pretty little head about this, we will learn to sip from 
this fire hose - already have to an extent.

GF:: "I argue that before we can have a semantic web we should at least 
have a  semantic mail."

WL: Argue away, but it really isn't a prerequisite, much as it would be 
lovely if only it were possible. What we need before we can "have a 
semantic web" is to get into a significantly higher 
doing/talking-about-doing ratio. At present it's about .0001!


Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2000 11:50:41 UTC