W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 10:17:12 -0400
Message-ID: <20110523.101712.773655685754226261.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <david.wood@talis.com>
CC: <richard@cyganiak.de>, <ivan@w3.org>, <lee@thefigtrees.net>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
The current version of the minutes has a resolution for ISSUE-40.   

RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-40 by adding text to RDF Concepts, per the
“Updated Proposal” from
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal with
action on Peter to propose edits

I thought that there was an action on me to propose these edits. ... Hmm,
no such action. ... There is now - ACTION-50, pending review with

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html


peter



From: David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
Subject: Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 08:52:24 -0500

> On May 23, 2011, at 02:05, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> On 23 May 2011, at 05:49, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Indeed, that was my immediate question reading the minutes... Do we have a resolution on the skolems (pending a s/steveH/???/ change)?
>> 
>> Well, there was a proposal. There was a vote that showed no opposition (except to the SteveH name which still needs to be changed, and some re-wording which Peter provided in the meantime). Guus asked me to close ISSUE-40 with a pointer to the resolution. I tried to do so, but found the resolution not recorded in the minutes.
> 
> Hmmm.  I seem to recall that Peter still had an issue with the proposal at [1] and took an action to suggest a minor change.  Does anyone else remember?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal

> 
> 
>> 
>> Looking at the minutes again, it was scribed that the chair said that we can close ISSUE-40, which implies that there was an (unscribed) resolution. I'm going to modify the minutes now to add the resolution. If anyone recalls this differently, please speak up and we'll revert.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I.
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman
>>> Tel:+31 641044153
>>> http://www.ivan-herman.net

>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 23 May 2011, at 04:08, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Was there a resolution on the proposal regarding ISSUE-40, or was that tabled for an un-minuted reason?
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Lee
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/22/2011 4:37 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>>> Seems like Wednesday's scribe didn't find time yet to generate the minutes, so I just did it:
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-18

>>>>> 
>>>>> I recall that one more resolution was made after a vote, but it was not scribed: accept the proposal on ISSUE-40.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Richard
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 14:19:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT