W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > August 2016

Re: [W3C Process] Specberus errors when attempting to publish SHACL spec

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 13:00:17 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ddba9ada-f69a-bcd7-87f3-138925cdf637@topquadrant.com>
A bit of trial-and-error later, it worked! New version went out at

     https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-20160814/

The changes that I had to make was to switch some URLs from http to 
https. Well, glad to know the W3C changed their policy...

Thanks
Holger


On 13/08/2016 22:16, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> On Aug 13, 2016 06:09, "Holger Knublauch" <holger@topquadrant.com 
> <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > thanks for looking into this. I see still nothing wrong. The
> >
> > <section id="sotd"></section>
> >
> > that produces this text is still there and hasn't been changed for 
> months. Also, we do have an entry
> >
> > wgPatentURI:  "http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/73865/status",
> >
> > which will be used to populate the patent policy. I did some more 
> (failed) attempts playing with document status (to WD). I also 
> compared our metadata with one that was recently published without 
> problems, but don't see any real differences.
> >
> > I am clueless at this stage and will need to post to some other W3C 
> mailing list (unless someone here has other ideas). Just to let you 
> know that we have  a delay with the publication.
>
> Automation is great, except when it isn't.
>
> I am, in principle, on vacation at my grandmother-in-law's cabin for 9 
> days but I'll find some opportunity to sneak away, some outlet to 
> power my laptop (I never go anywhere without it), and some digital 
> network to transport my bits.
>
> > Holger
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/08/2016 16:29, Simon Steyskal wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >>>  "key": "no-disclosures",
> >>>  "type": {
> >>>  "name": "sotd.pp"
> >>> .............
> >>>  To me these look like problems in the header metdata, but I am not
> >>> aware of changes from our side. I tried to make sense of this using
> >>> https://www.w3.org/pubrules [2] and the little info that I could find
> >>> on specberus, but maybe those more experienced with the W3C process
> >>> (cough, Eric) may have seen this before?
> >>
> >>
> >> Sounds like it's about the document status section [1]:
> >>
> >> "ยง It MUST include this text related to patent policy requirements 
> (with suitable links inserted; see guidelines for linking to 
> disclosure pages):
> >>
> >>     This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 
> February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any 
> patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the 
> group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. 
> An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the 
> individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the 
> information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy."
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> simon
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules/?profile=WD#document-status
> >>
> >> ---
> >> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
> >> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
> >>
> >> www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys
> >>
> >> Am 2016-08-12 05:03, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
> >>>
> >>> I was trying to publish a new version of the SHACL spec using Echidna
> >>> but this time got two new errors that I cannot explain:
> >>>
> >>> "specberus": {
> >>>  "status": "failure",
> >>>  "errors": [
> >>>  {
> >>>  "key": "no-disclosures",
> >>>  "type": {
> >>>  "name": "sotd.pp"
> >>>  }
> >>>  },
> >>>  {
> >>>  "key": "no-homepage",
> >>>  "extra": {
> >>>  "homepage": "http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/ [1]"
> >>>  },
> >>>  "type": {
> >>>  "name": "sotd.group-homepage",
> >>>  "section": "document-status",
> >>>  "rule": "WGLink"
> >>>  }
> >>>  }
> >>>  ]
> >>>  },
> >>>  To me these look like problems in the header metdata, but I am not
> >>> aware of changes from our side. I tried to make sense of this using
> >>> https://www.w3.org/pubrules [2] and the little info that I could find
> >>> on specberus, but maybe those more experienced with the W3C process
> >>> (cough, Eric) may have seen this before?
> >>>
> >>>  (Besides, what would be the URL to give to the pubrules test server?
> >>> I tried
> >>> 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/data-shapes/gh-pages/shacl/index.html 
>
> >>> [3] but that produces 28 errors).
> >>>
> >>>  Thanks!
> >>>  Holger
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Links:
> >>> ------
> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/
> >>> [2] https://www.w3.org/pubrules
> >>> [3] 
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/data-shapes/gh-pages/shacl/index.html
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2016 03:00:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:36 UTC