- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:40:47 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
> As was said in the call, it seems quite likely that a future R2RML > 1.1 WG would want to revisit this issue. Therefore it should really > be marked POSTPONED, and not CLOSED, right? > > It's currently marked as pending review – maybe the chairs could > switch it to POSTPONED? > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/72 Correct and thanks for the catch - I've added a note and changed it to POSTPONED. Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 20 Dec 2011, at 19:22, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Oh, one more clerical thing: > > On 20 Dec 2011, at 18:02, Michael Hausenblas wrote: >> [[ >> RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-72 with no action. Add an example using an >> R2RML view. >> ]] > > As was said in the call, it seems quite likely that a future R2RML > 1.1 WG would want to revisit this issue. Therefore it should really > be marked POSTPONED, and not CLOSED, right? > > It's currently marked as pending review – maybe the chairs could > switch it to POSTPONED? > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/72 > > Thanks, > Richard
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2011 10:41:27 UTC