Three ordinary WDs for publication 2015-05-19

Hi Denis,

The Data on the Web Best Practices WG would like to publish three WDs 
tomorrow, please. All are already installed and ready to go, subject to 
your approval of my notes that follow. I will liaise separately with 
Maria & Comms re HP wording.

In all three cases the generated diff document is not valid (it sticks 
<ins> and <del> elements where they're not supposed to be). If you 
insist, I'll fix them, but I hope you don't as it would take an enormous 
amount of time for little gain.

All these are just new iterations of existing publications so it should 
be straightforward (a phrase that belies a huge amount of effort that's 
gone into them but this isn't the time or place to worry about that).


Data on the Web Best Practices
==============================
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-dwbp-20160519/

Resolution to publish:
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/13-dwbp-minutes#resolution02

Dataset Usage Vocabulary
========================

URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-duv-20160519/

Resolution to publish:
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/13-dwbp-minutes#resolution04

This is not a Rec Track document - the next version is likely to be the 
last and will be published as a Note. This is reflected in the SoTD 
section which PubRules seems to complain about but the text is correct I 
believe (it's from ReSpec).


Data Quality Vocabulary
=======================

URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/

Resolution to publish:
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/13-dwbp-minutes#resolution03

Same issues as above with the non-rec Track status section.

Thanks

Phil.


-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 09:20:56 UTC