Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18

Arghh!!  I *hate* proxies that do too much caching.

I'll mark 49 as pending review as well.

peter


From: "Schreiber, A.T." <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Subject: Re: RDF WG minutes from 2011-05-18
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:34:53 -0500

> "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 14:38:24 UTC