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

Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18

From: Schreiber, A.T. <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:25:56 +0000
To: "<antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>" <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>
CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3DF0914A-7960-4511-87AF-8A2BB393128E@vu.nl>

Op 23 mei 2011 om 16:17 heeft "Antoine Zimmermann" <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr> het volgende geschreven:

> I remember that it was first proposed to close the issue and accept Richard's proposed text, to which Peter objected, saying that he agreed with the intentions of the text but not with the wording. The ensuing discussion led to the agreement that we would close the issue by accepting that a reworded text would be proposed, keeping the substance but improving the wording. Peter accepted to send a new formulation (which he did little time after the telecon).

In my recollection this Is precisely what happened, thanks Antoine. Unfortunately I have poor conectivity at the moment. Could someone take the action to update the minutes? 

Guus
> 
> 
> Le 23/05/2011 15:52, David Wood a écrit :
>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Antoine Zimmermann
> Researcher at:
> Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
> Database Group
> 7 Avenue Jean Capelle
> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
> France
> Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13
> Lecturer at:
> Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
> 20 Avenue Albert Einstein
> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
> France
> antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
> 
Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 14:26:26 GMT

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