On 4/12/11 10:37 AM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
On your part, you claim Excel is pathetic.
No, I said that it's pathetic that Excel doesn't offer better tools
for evaluating and improving data.
Excel has always been extensible. You or anyone else can extend it.
Thus, how can it be pathetic that Excel doesn't offer this feature when
its extremely extensible? The feature in question isn't core
functionality in the eyes of Excel product developers.
Bottom, your subjective comments about Excel or any other product
are unwarranted.
Look, can't we just have a civil debate? Disagreements and debates
are healthy in any realm.
Not sure what to do with this pair of statements.
Example: you see Google Refine vs Excel as an "Apples vs Apples"
comparison re. Data Reconciliation matters.
I said no such thing. I brought up Google Refine precisely because
it's a different sort of thing than Excel.
You brought it up in the context of Excel i.e., in response to the
thread developing around you utterances that comprised of the patterns
"Excel" and "Pathetic". You are basically quibbling about Excel not
being capable of the functionality delivered by Google Refine or taking
the position that its pathetic that Excel lacks such functionality. You
quibble about an inaccurate assertion between DBpedia and OpenCyc re.
owl:sameAs. What point are you trying to make re. "Pathetic" and "Excel"
with regards to "Google Refine" ?
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
