This seems fine to me too. Thanks, Ian On 17 Jul 2009, at 19:09, Mike Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 05:45, Michael Schneider<schneid@fzi.de> > wrote: >> Here are the 3 testcases: >> >> <http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/ >> Rdfbased-sem-prop-backwardcompatiblewith-type-annot> >> <http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/ >> Rdfbased-sem-prop-incompatiblewith-type-annot> >> <http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/ >> Rdfbased-sem-prop-priorversion-type-annot> > >> I have also added the "proposed" flag with the date of 14th July, >> since this would have been the date if we would have made our >> resolution earlier. But maybe this should be changed. > > I reset the proposed date to Jul 16. I think that our telecon votes > on the issue and the test cases together cover them and will move them > to approved status after a few days for anyone to raise objections. > > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia >Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 18:31:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 July 2009 18:31:05 GMT