Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18

"Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

> The current version of the minutes has a resolution for ISSUE-40.   
> 
> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-40 by adding text to RDF Concepts, per the
> “Updated Proposal” from
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal with
> action on Peter to propose edits
> 
> I thought that there was an action on me to propose these edits. ... Hmm,
> no such action. ... There is now - ACTION-50, pending review with

Actually, I created the action after the telecon as ACTION-49.  Sorry for not pasting it into the minutes. But at least you now completed two for the price of one :-)

Guus

> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 
> From: David Wood <david.wood@talis.com>
> Subject: Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 08:52:24 -0500
> 
>> On May 23, 2011, at 02:05, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 May 2011, at 05:49, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> Indeed, that was my immediate question reading the minutes... Do we have a resolution on the skolems (pending a s/steveH/???/ change)?
>>> 
>>> Well, there was a proposal. There was a vote that showed no opposition (except to the SteveH name which still needs to be changed, and some re-wording which Peter provided in the meantime). Guus asked me to close ISSUE-40 with a pointer to the resolution. I tried to do so, but found the resolution not recorded in the minutes.
>> 
>> Hmmm.  I seem to recall that Peter still had an issue with the proposal at [1] and took an action to suggest a minor change.  Does anyone else remember?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Looking at the minutes again, it was scribed that the chair said that we can close ISSUE-40, which implies that there was an (unscribed) resolution. I'm going to modify the minutes now to add the resolution. If anyone recalls this differently, please speak up and we'll revert.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I.
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> Ivan Herman
>>>> Tel:+31 641044153
>>>> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 23 May 2011, at 04:08, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Was there a resolution on the proposal regarding ISSUE-40, or was that tabled for an un-minuted reason?
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Lee
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/2011 4:37 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>>>> Seems like Wednesday's scribe didn't find time yet to generate the minutes, so I just did it:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-18
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I recall that one more resolution was made after a vote, but it was not scribed: accept the proposal on ISSUE-40.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>

Received on Monday, 23 May 2011 14:35:23 UTC