W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Preparing editor's drafts -- Q's for the team contacts

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:50:52 +0100
Message-Id: <BCEFCBB6-A85F-4067-BC8B-833F3FB57854@cyganiak.de>
To: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
A bunch of questions for the team contacts.

We have resolved the first issues that imply spec changes, and the chairs are urging the RDF Concepts editors to prepare a presentable editor's draft. So it is urgent that the support infrastructure for editors is put in place. There are also some basic questions that all editors will face as soon as they convert their document to ReSpec.

Here we go:


1. I assume there will be a joint Mercurial repository for the WG. Where is it? I can keep my work under version control in a local repository for now, but I'd like to start collaborating with my co-editor rather sooner than later.

2. I assume we will do public editor's drafts. What will the IRI of the RDF Concepts draft be?

3. Old title: “Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax”. Is this now “RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax (Second Edition)” or “RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax” or something else? What shall I use as a working title?

4. I believe it is W3C policy to add the names of additional editors to the list of editor names from previous editions that are already in the spec. Affiliations and contact details of the previous editors may have changed; should an effort be made to contact them and get those details fixed?

5. The specs have a “Series Editor” (Brian McBride). I believe that ReSpec doesn't have such a feature. How to handle this?

6. ReSpec wants to know a URI for the patent status of the WG. From the config file:

  // URI of the patent status for this WG, for Rec-track documents
  // !!!! IMPORTANT !!!!
  // This is important for Rec-track documents, do not copy a patent URI from a random
  // document unless you know what you're doing. If in doubt ask your friendly neighbourhood
  // Team Contact.

7. Am I right to assume that the metadata.rdf thingy in the footer of the documents is obsoleted by ReSpec's RDFa output?

8. Do we have a policy regarding the use of RFC 2119? I note that RDF Concepts contains one uppercase SHOULD, but does not make reference to RFC 2119. If we wish to use it in a document, is there boilerplate for defining the magic words?

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 22:51:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT