<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.itskeptic.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Pink</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/24</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Every word in the thesaurus: how  to distinguish between PinkVerify and ITIL compliance</title>
 <link>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/72</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A little clarification is in order after &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itsmwatch.com/itil/article.php/3644451&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;my recent article on ITSMWatch&lt;/a&gt;, re my position on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pinkelephant.com/en-US/PinkVerify/PinkVerify.htm&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;PinkVerify&lt;/a&gt;.  Bill Irvine of Pink Elephant published &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itsmwatch.com/itil/article.php/3646441&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;a response on ITSMWatch&lt;/a&gt; clarifying that PinkVerify does not claim that certified products are ITIL compliant.  &quot;In order to comply with something you need a standard&quot;.  Funny, that&#039;s what I thought &quot;certification&quot; required too.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.itskeptic.org/node/72&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.itskeptic.org/node/72#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/1">ITIL</category>
 <category domain="http://www.itskeptic.org/taxonomy/term/24">Pink</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:49:34 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>skeptic</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">72 at http://www.itskeptic.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
