Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References

Peter,

Sorry to hear that. However, this user story is driven by REST API use
cases and has been part of OSLC since the first Shape spec. What is
your objection? Is the user story still not clear enough, or is it
clear enough and you feel it is a bad idea? If a bad idea, please
elaborate.

-- Arthur

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 04/09/2015 02:18 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>> Adding the action # to the subject line for the benefit of the issue
>> tracker. See [1]. I've replied to the comments. Thanks Karen, Peter,
>> Richard.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0147.html
>>
>>  - Arthur
>>
>
> I'm liking this less and less.
>
> peter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJwQhAAoJECjN6+QThfjzQyEH/2v/+/eHc+vLaicBvCYSpkye
> hxU9o8gHXzrdy+wMlaAC28IJaJFAYzFuK9cEdkW+O8K9qFXaGe3HobaD3vRNS0nf
> o8eebN0d73xkLB1L347uWfdxL/RM66SMkprsc15lwfiZ1Gb/72hqc9Ff0uad7nIa
> fU1LhMZxvYN3yZXprVNtU2BdswnNIMCOqbxL+NfjBV7aT9B95zCmhBJoWzhTawoB
> q/peQehDIkmlF0GyNHyqlz7nxS1HEdH3xs5/GeUiu2ewYDkO9b5Pai+Fz++nst7s
> ODk3mPfCdsfj/PRNzOTahw0ZyBwo3d0uSciqwJJcXBjey2sRv8N2VuWasI4NFnY=
> =l2QB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 01:55:08 UTC