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


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

Henry Story <> wrote on 07/09/2013 09:44:59 AM:

> From: Henry Story <>
> To:, 
> 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

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2013 11:06:01 UTC