Re: ISSUE-50 should be postponed

I wonder what makes you think so because the meeting record is quite clear 
on what the resolution was:

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-50 without change to normative spec, editors to 
check examples to any untoward use of relative uris, and companion 
documents to discuss this common pattern for allocating URIs

See https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-20#resolution_8

Now, feel free to add something to the wish list for LDPnext if you'd 
like.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 07/09/2013 09:44:59 AM:

> From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 07/09/2013 09:45 AM
> Subject: ISSUE-50 should be postponed
> 
> I am pretty sure that ISSUE-50 was not voted to
> be closed, but to be postponed during the face
> to face. 
> 
>   Somehow it was considered difficult to implement,
> where clearly it is easier than most other things
> to implement that have gone through: it only requires
> an entry in an ontology.
> 
>   In any case it was decided that this could be
> introduced at a later stage. So I don't see why 
> this is closed.
> 
>    Henry
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
> 
>