W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Fwd: Re: Three ordinary WDs for publication 2015-05-19

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 16:10:12 +0100
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d203e6dc-e260-55c5-90aa-c5ad567fd82b@w3.org>
We're live...

As we'll discuss tomorrow, we need to make a lot of noise about this to 
a) get reviews before the next stage; b) get people ready to actually 
implement/test things out which is the final stage.

Thanks again to the editors for doing so much.



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Three ordinary WDs for publication 2015-05-19
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 18:59:32 +0400
From: Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Webmaster <webreq@w3.org>
CC: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Caroline Burle 
<cburle@nic.br>, Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>, Eric Stephan 
<ericphb@gmail.com>, Purohit, Sumit <Sumit.Purohit@pnnl.gov>, Antoine 
Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Riccardo Albertoni 
<albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>


The documents have been published on http://www.w3.org/TR/ and news is
available at https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5420.


Maria and Denis

On 05/18/2016 01:20 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
> 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.
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2016 15:10:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:52 UTC