Re: ISSUE-50 should be postponed

On 9 Jul 2013, at 13:05, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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. 

All the discussion was about how this would be a good thing for a next version. That means that it is
postponed, not closed. 

So I'd like to challenge the CLOSED nature of that vote.


> --
> 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/
> > 
> > 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/