W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Error in RDF/XML Syntax Specification?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:57:21 +0100
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna.biz>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050406095721.202f44a3@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:57:22 -0400, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> wrote:

> We can't change the recommendation as such, afaik. But we can record 
> things in an Errata (see
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#rdf-syntax-grammar) such that
> future WGs could pick up these issues and publish new WDs based on them.
> 
> I'm not sure how much structure we have around review of errata text.
> Basically the problem falls back on the W3C Team, when there's no WG in
> place. In this case, we have a SW Coordination Group who meet weekly, 
> I suggest the following plan of action:
>  
>  - someone (perhaps Dave, as the relevant spec Editor) draft an Errata 
>    section on this problem, citing the www-rdf-comments thread. 
>  - I'll raise this within SWCG, where we'll apply some basic sanity
>    checks, then update /2001/sw/RDFCore/errata
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Errata has some style guidelines for 
> errata.
> 
> Dave, how's that sound?

Sounds OK to me, but I'm the former editor with no w3c-process
authority to make errata on these RECs (and I've seen things
on other RDF Core RECs too that need errata, but I've not been
collecting them)

Maybe these should be recorded with a status something like
   Potential Errata recorded by W3C Team but not reviewed by a WG
   as there is at present no WG chartered to maintain these documents.

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 08:57:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:34 GMT