- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:52:30 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jim, On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Jim Hendler wrote: > so, to recap, I felt that issue 73 was closed without enough > discussion to make it clear to me (and maybe some others) what the > implications were, and since it was closed without consensus, I > wanted to make sure RPI was on record as not having agreed, since > we, like HP, may want to review the issue at a later time I wanted to make a comment just about this point. The item was on the agenda scheduled for discussion and the agenda was published well in advance of the meeting. It is our expectation that should there be an issue that is of interest to a member than either a) a representative will attend the meeting or b) advance notice be given that the issue is important, that someone can't make the meeting at which the issue is to be discussed and that it is therefore request that discussion be postponed or that c) issues (such as not understanding and issue well enough) be explicitly be brought up in email before the meeting so that they can be be discussed in email first and then adequately accounted for in the discussion at the meeting. Thanks, Alan
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 14:52:43 UTC