RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services Glossary ) from Assaf Arkin on 2003-02-26 (www-ws-arch@w3.org from February 2003)

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:59:05 -0800
To: "Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNKEDIDEAA.arkin@intalio.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:52 PM
> To: Assaf Arkin; David Orchard; Hugo Haas
> Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org; Mark Baker
> Subject: RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> )
>
> Is there anyone who REALLY wants and cares about the use of "a priori"
> as opposed to "prior" in the charter and the requirements?  If not, can
> we possibly declare this argument to be moot?

To summarize my verbiage, I support your position.

Easier to use a simpler term then spend the whole day discussing Midieval
Latin ;-)

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 17:01:13 UTC