Closed brandonnodnarb closed 8 years ago
Hi @brandonnodnarb this is garbage and has only been retained for the purpose of showing what a requirement would look like. We can and will remove it in due course. Thanks for pointing that out.
oh. sorry. that's twice I've done that now! my bad. /Brandon
On Thursday, 29 September 2016, Lewis John McGibbney < notifications@github.com> wrote:
Hi @brandonnodnarb https://github.com/brandonnodnarb this is garbage and has only been retained for the purpose of showing what a requirement would look like. We can and will remove it in due course. Thanks for pointing that out.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ESIPFed/stc/issues/7#issuecomment-250514989, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARJcOOBaz0HvDz9Onvd4qqNwAj-P-nAks5qu-RVgaJpZM4KJ0jS .
Does this need to be a requirement? Perhaps I'm taking a narrow view here, but the temporal commitment (or participation) of an ontology has to do with how the objects and/or processes are modeled, not how they are stored, versioned, etc., within the repository.