RE: Review of FPWD Conneg-by-AP

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 5:07 PM, andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu [mailto:andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu] wrote:

[...]
> >> 5. Section 5.2:
> >>
> >> [[
> >> 1. list profiles
> >> a server responds to a client with the list of profile URIs for the profiles it is
> >able to
> >> deliver resource representations conforming to
> >> ]]
> >>
> >> I wonder whether there's something missing at the end of the sentence
> >> ("conforming to" what?)
> >
> >The sentence is correct but admittedly hard to read. "conforming to" refers
> >to the profiles in the list of profile URIs. It's hard to come up with a catchy
> >definition. My best attempt would be:
> >[[
> >A server responds to a client with a list of profile URIs. For each URI in that
> >list, the server can deliver at least one resource representation conforming
> >to the profile identified by that URI."
> >]]
> >
> >Does that make sense?
> 
> +1. Thanks!

OK, let's see what Nick and Rob say.

> >> 6. Section 7: The link to the test suite must be included in config.js
> >> (https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/testSuiteURI), which will take care of
> >including
> >> it into the "Status of this document" section.
> >>
> >> 7. Section 8: The link to the implementation must be included in config.js
> >> (https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/implementationReportURI), which
> >will take
> >> care of including it into the "Status of this document" section. Also, I think
> >the
> >> implementation report should be placed in the DXWG wiki space.
> >
> >Ah, thanks, I wasn't aware of those... Can/should we still have separate
> >sections for test suite and implementations or does ReSpec take care of that
> >as soon as we include them in config.js?
> 
> AFAIK, there's no rule preventing the inclusion of a specific section for
> implementations and test suites.

OK. Then we can keep the current structure for the time being.

> >I've created PR #567 to add the links to config.js. I'm not sure where to keep
> >the implementation report(s) and that's probably something we need to
> >address in a plenary meeting.
> 
> Looking at what other WGs have done, there are a number of options:
> 
> The more "traditional" one is the WG wiki space - e.g.,
> - https://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/DCAT_Implementations

> - https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/OWL_Time_Ontology_adoption

> 
> Another option is using the WG GH repo - e.g.:
> - http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
> - https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/


OK. As said, I think we should address this in a plenary meeting to ensure that we have a consistent policy in all our documents. Although that didn't prevent the SDW WG from having SSN usage on github and Time Ontology adaption in the W3C wiki space...

Best,

Lars

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2018 16:24:33 UTC