W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Getting ready to publish our documents (pubrules etc.)

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 09:42:27 +0100
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D16D936C-D605-414E-BF85-B6E77D632FA9@deri.org>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
> We should probably aim for Jan 5.

Alright so, then let's fix/discuss the details in tomorrow's call.

Happy new year, everyone!
Axel

On 2 Jan 2012, at 01:55, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 20:13 +0100, Axel Polleres wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Following the resolutions from the last telco before christmas, I started to prepare docs for publication - starting with the Update doc -
> > with publication date Jan 2nd and comments period until Feb 2nd.
> > I am not really sure we can really achieve Jan 2nd as publication date,
> 
> Yeah, also, it turns out to be a holiday around here ("New Years Day
> Observed").   We should probably aim for Jan 5.
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
> >  but here are the steps summarized again which we need
> > to do for all other docs as well ...
> >
> >  1) I have followed the steps from http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Pub-Process...
> >  2) ...I have copied the final version to the following pub folder on CVS: WWW/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102,
> >     example file: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/pub/20120102/WD-sparql11-update-20120102/ (pubrules checked)
> >  1) In addition to the points mentioned at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Pub-Process, I have added a red wgNote box
> >     (this uses local.css, also committed in the pub folder) which says the following in the Status section:
> >
> >     "Given that sufficient implementation experience has already been reported by the time of the
> >      next publication round, the SPARQL Working Group is considering to skip Candidate Recommendation
> >      phase and advance this specification directly to Proposed Recommendation with its next version."
> >
> >  4) Important: For all documents, we need to update particularly the Status section... Unless the changes to
> >     previous version are up-to-date (.e. if they still refer to the one but last version),
> >     I would by default simply remove such comments on changes from the previous version.
> >
> > So, @alleditors: Let me know if you can do the same for your respective docs, ideally by tomorrow COB...
> > if not, and if we want to stick with Jan 2nd, I will just try to proceed likewise with the other docs myself,
> > not sure if I manage before Monday, but let's see, will sort out the earliest pub date otherwise with Lee
> > and Sandro.
> >
> > If I don't hear back from you, let me wish @all a great coming year 2012 already!
> >
> > cheers,
> > Axel
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 2 January 2012 08:43:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT