On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Nick Hocking wrote:
> I'm also a "real mapper" and I do truly desire the "cleansing bot" to weave
> It's magic as soon as possible.
> This is because I'm reluctant to add any new data to the project while there
> is *ANY* date left in the project that
> was not do
"I've seen no such demonstration of desire. The only thing we real
mappers..."
Hi Alan,
I'm also a "real mapper" and I do truly desire the "cleansing bot" to weave
It's magic as soon as possible.
This is because I'm reluctant to add any new data to the project while
there is *ANY* date left in
On 22 June 2012 04:28, Simon Poole wrote:
> Actually in real life the damage to nodes is substantially less
...
> more importantly,
> 0.53% points (so not quite half of the 1.2%) of the tainted nodes are from
> imports, that, should we so wish, could be reimported (on the case of
> ABS2006 with be
Am 21.06.2012 19:35, schrieb Richard Fairhurst:
>
> The "huge amount of data" is globally not that huge. It is 1.2% of
nodes (or so odbl.poole.ch tells me,
Actually in real life the damage to nodes is substantially less. On the
one hand I don't respect the V0 rule, on the other hand and more
imp
[followups set to legal-talk, but you may want to adjust to talk-us if
focusing on LA etc.]
On 21/06/2012 17:57, Alan Mintz wrote:
Richard wrote:
...Given people's constraints on time and the community's
(understandable) desire for the redaction to get underway asap...
I've seen no such demo
Richard wrote:
>...Given people's constraints on time and the community's (understandable)
>desire for the redaction to get underway asap...
I've seen no such demonstration of desire. The only thing we real mappers
are discussing is anxiety over exactly what will happen and when, and the
huge a
