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

Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 18:47:47 +0100
Cc: "<antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>" <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <00092053-DF44-46B1-B603-C0BF0BFB68A8@cyganiak.de>
To: "Schreiber, A.T." <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Guus,

On 23 May 2011, at 15:25, Schreiber, A.T. wrote:
> 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? 

I updated them already, they now say [1]:

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

So all should be sorted out now. Thanks!

Richard

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-18#resolution_2



> 
> 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 17:48:17 GMT

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