Fwd: SPARQL WG publication of 1 FPWD and 6 new versions of WDs

FYI (for the editors' interest especially), sent last night.

Axel

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
> Date: 27 January 2010 01:51:20 GMT
> To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
> Cc: <webreq@w3.org>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: SPARQL WG publication of 1 FPWD and 6 new versions of WDs
> 
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the problems. We fixed most of them, those which we didn't, but which I don't really 
> consider problems are listed below. Please check again, from my point of view ok for publication now. Details inline below.
> 
> Thanks,
> Axel
> 
> 
> 1. http://validator.w3.org/checklink
> 
> On 26 Jan 2010, at 15:04, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> 
>> Hi Axel,
>> 
>> I still have some issues for some documents. Note that the pubrules
>> checker is ok for all of them.
>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/gen.html
>>> 
>> There are broken links and broken fragments.
> 
> 
> the following links that pubrules or linkchecker [1] complain about, should IMO be fine:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiset (1 occurrence)
> -> 403 (Forbidden)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiset (1 occurrence)
> -> 403 (Forbidden)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-query-20100126/ (1 occurrence)
> -> 404 (Not Found)
> 
> I also checked fragment links which the link checker complained about but which seem fine to me (correct RDF resources):
> 
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil 
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
> 
> Likewise, the following fragment works for me
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/SPARQL_Errata#Wording_.2F_Typos
> 
> although link-checker claims it's broken.
> 
>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/gen.html
>>> 
>> 
>> There are broken fragments.
> 
> Link checker complains about the following, but they are fine as soon as all docs are moved to their destination location:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rTriplesBlock --> This fragment exists in the new version, but not in the old (current) version of query
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#rConstructTriples --> This fragment exists in the new version, but not in the old (current) version of query
> 
> We expect these fragment IDs to remain stable over the next specs (they are inherited from the original sparql-query spec)
> Shall I use the dated versions instead or is that ok?
> 
> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/gen.html
>>> 
>> 
>> There are broken fragments.
> 
> Link checker complains about the following, but they are fine as soon as all docs are moved to their destination location:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/#sec_grammar
>  http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/#grammar
>    --> These fragment exist in the new versions of update and grammar, but not in the old (current) versions.
> 
> Shall I use the dated versions instead or is that ok?
> 
>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/gen.html
>>> 
>> 
>> This one is ok.
>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/Overview.html
>>> 
>> 
>> This one is ok.
>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/gen.html
>>> 
>> 
>> There are broken links and broken fragments. I would suggest you to not
>> point to fragments while using a Latest Version URL that is not a
>> Recommendation, as it can be broken at anytime. For example:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query//#rdfDataset . Use a dated URL instead./
>> 
> 
> This one should be ok now.
> 
>>> Moreover, we resolved [7] to publish one additional FPWD (the shortname approval is in the end of this mail), current location:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/property-paths/gen.html
>>> 
>> 
>> There are broken fragments.
> 
> That one works for me: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/TaskForce:PropertyPaths#Use_Cases
> 
>> 
>> Alexandre.
>> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2010 10:41:26 UTC