W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: heads-up: LC vote on Tue unless major concerns!

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 00:33:49 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinytu+kPfzsxgzZ8j4CxfgLo_RZqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2 May 2011 01:07, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I want to at least attempt to vote for publishing as LC for
>  * Query:
>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml
>  * Update:
>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/Overview.xml
>  * Entailment regimes
>      http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/entailment/xmlspec.xml
>
> and whichever other documents are ready for this Tuesday
> even if we decide to accept going to LC "modulo minor fixes"
> that we agree editors to  resolve directly with reviewers.
>
> Thus,
> 1) Editors, please let us know if you're ready from your side (for any documents)
> 2) complete pubrules-check-ACTIONS
> 3) anybody having severe concerns about any issues on any of the documents, please speak up now
>
> The reason, why we'd ideally go ahead this week to "release" at least the first batch
> of documents for LC is that otherwise we have to wait until late May [1]

Hi all,
I tried my best pub rule checking. Here the list of problems that I
can't solve myself:

Is 12 May 2011 our pub date? I have 6 May at the moment (easy to change).

- link checker

http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-results-json/ does not exist, but we are
supposed to reference all documents that are related. Should I remove
the JSON reference completely or reference the old note?

We had (I copied from Query actually)
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-federation/
that gives a 404, so I use instead now
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-federated-query/
Is that ok?

In the RIF section we have a link with view-source, which the link
checker doesn't like:
view-source:http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/test/repository/tc/Class_Membership/Class_Membership.xml
We had that already last time and the link is ok and we didn't have to
change it.

-pub rules
All proposed XML namespaces created by the publication of the document
MUST follow URIs for W3C Namespaces.
Error The Namespaces Checker was used for this test. The following is
a list of URIs that might be (broken) namespace URIs. Note: If they
are not namespace URIs, please just let the Webmaster know in your
publication request.

http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/ (3 occurrences)
    -> 302 (Moved Temporarily) -> 405 (Method Not Allowed)  => is ok
http://purl.org/vocab/relationship/worksWith (1 occurrence)
    -> 302 (Moved Temporarily) -> 405 (Method Not Allowed)  => is ok
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-entailment-20110506/ (1 occurrence)
    -> 404 (Not Found)  => cannot yet exist

8.1
If the document is compound (i.e., if it consists of more than one
file), all the files MUST be under a directory
/TR/2011/WD-shortname-2011MMDD/
Error. While I did not check that all resources are located in the
correct directory, I did find some problematic URIs (e.g., they refer
to resources not hosted by W3C or to style sheets or icons expected in
other directories):
    * semantics.png
    * bnodeExample.png
The pictures are there, bu obviously I don't have a directory
/TR/2011/WD-shortname-2011MMDD/ yet.


Birte

> best,
> Axel
>
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2011JanMar/0001.html
>



-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 23:34:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT