- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 07:09:28 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 18:45, Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> wrote: > > If we foresee people adding further examples beyond the ones extracted from the specs, lets put them under /annotation/2016/examples/ > > Agree that having them on github would be good too ... but makes it harder to give them real URLs beyond the gh-pages trick. I guess I'm not convinced that people would make new PRs against the repository after the end of the WG, as there'd be no one with the task of reviewing or authority to accept them. This has come up in other WGs -- for example there are several PRs open against the LDP test kit: https://github.com/w3c/ldp-testsuite/pulls <https://github.com/w3c/ldp-testsuite/pulls> This is actually, a slightly larger issue, which we may want to address: what is called in the w3c jargon "life after rec". This includes these types of changes, but also errata management, etc. In the CSV WG what we did was to set up a new CG whose goal is to (1) discuss and possible propose changes like the ones you refer to (2) discuss possible errata and how to manage them (3) possibly discuss issues around a v2. That CG actually uses the WG's (former) github repo, and even the errata management is bound to that repo (see [1] to see how it works). The former WG chairs, document editors (and the W3C staff, especially the team contact) has the right to accept PR-s and write/admin the repo. Some of the pointers (like the errata) are redirected from W3C space to github, but most of the things are just there[2]. The CG has not been terribly active, no new PR has arrived, and only a few errata (but that worked smoothly). This is obviously the example of the horse drinking or not, but it is way better than concentrating everything on the W3C site which, these days (when practically nobody used CVS any more except the team) means that it becomes the sole responsibility of one or two team members. That becomes a bottleneck, much greater than via github. I am very much in favour following the CSV WG line. I do not really mind if the URI-s of the test cases are github URI-s, but we can simply redirect a directory to a github directory, ie, www.w3.org/annotation/v1/examples <http://www.w3.org/annotation/v1/examples> -> https://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/???? <https://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/????> (I am, actually, not convinced that /web-annotation/admin/TR is the best path for this, although the latest changes seem to go that direction. Simply a /web-annotation/TR would work, too. But that is a detail.) My 2 cents... 1. https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/errata/ <https://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/errata/> 2. http://w3c.github.io/csvw/ -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/251#issuecomment-224198295 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2016 07:09:30 UTC