Re: Comments GK-1 and 2

Hi steve,

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0000.html
is GK-3 and I drafted a response to it (not yet sent)

I agree that we can ignore GK-1, and probably also GK-2.
Am not entirely clear what you mean by GK-2 should be linked to GK-3?
You mean, just on the comments page, put them in the same line?

Apart fro mthat, are youok with the reply to GK-3 (then I'll send it, was just wating for a second approval, Andy gave ok already)

Axel




On 12 Oct 2010, at 12:59, Steve Harris wrote:

> GK-1 is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Sep/0000.html, but
> GK-2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0001.html
> Says to ignore GK-1.
> 
> Do they still require a formal response? Seems a bit excessive.
> 
> I suspect that GK-1 should be ignored, and GK-2 should be linked to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0000.html
> 
> - Steve
> 
> --
> Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
> 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
> +44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
> Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
> Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 09:57:56 UTC