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

Re: SPARQL TC 2011-05-03 Agenda

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:25:31 +0100
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FBAD9ECC-7649-4C41-9828-822D5FD74C50@deri.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>

On 2 May 2011, at 15:28, Axel Polleres wrote:

> Dear all,
> I will hopefully upload a formal agenda hopefully later today at the usual place:
>   http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-05-03
> but here is alrady what is planned for tomorrow:
> We shall go through all documents:
>   1) check with editors whether ready for LC publication
>        - any open issues on to_last_call wiki?
>        - any critical reviewer comments open?
>        - any critical comments-list comments open?
>        - pubrules check done?

For the Update side

Remaining issue:
- do we need USING DEFAULT -- PROPOSED: move that to "Postponed Issues"


to be published at 


some remaining issues:

* It must indicate that this is a Last Call Working Draft.
=> Is there a standard text that all WD from the Group should use ?

* It must include the name of the W3C group that produced the document. The name must be a link to a public page for the group.
=> There's already a link to the group, but seems the pubrules checker do not like this. How others handled this ?

* All proposed XML namespaces created by the publication of the document must follow URIs for W3C Namespaces.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-update-20110512/ (1 occurrence) -> 404 (Not Found)
=> I guess that's ok when we publish ?


NB: Paul, Axel, Do not re-run the XML -> HTML script if you update the doc for the remaining issue as several pubrules had to be done directly in the HTML file

>   2) PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft
>        (we need a formal vote there, I assume for minor open issues, this can also vary to)
>      PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft modulo ACTION-XYZ
>        (i.e. allow us to assign actions to reviewers/editors to resolve minor issues bilaterally without the need for another formal group decision)
> If editors could answer to the subitems of 1)  prior to the call tomorrow, that might help us!
> best,
> Axel
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 09:26:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC