Re: EMAIL VOTE on decision to make for owl-time dependency "at risk"

On 20/06/13 19:49, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> As per today's decision, I spoke to Ralph Swick (acting as W3C Director)
> about the owl-time dependency.  By sheer luck (I'm not kidding), Phil,
> Hadley, Bernadette, and Thomas Roessler were on the call as well.
>
> Ralph isn't prepared to make an exception of the size we're asking
> without taking more time to gather input, so we came up with a tactic
> for postponing the decision: put the normative reference At Risk.  This
> is also asking for input from the community on whether the strict
> linkage to owl-time is good or bad, and how stable owl-time is
> considered to be.
>
> It would be very good to publish the CR drafts on Tuesday (because I'm
> hoping our extension request will be considered Wednesday), so Dave, do
> you think you can make this change to the document by Monday morning? If
> not, I think I can do it.

I have updated the static-cr.html versions of both ORG and Data Cube, 
ready for publication:

  o addressed Ralph's editorial comments, including updating the 
normative references,
  o included the exit criteria and At Risk summary in-line,
  o added the At Risk statement for OWL Time in ORG (at the front and at 
point in the document where OWL Time is used),
  o set the publication dates for Tuesday,
  o set the minimum CR date for a month away,
  o manually fixed up the various clashes between pubrules, respec and 
the preferred SOTD layout.

Data Cube is pubrules-clean, so long as you manually set it to be CR status.

ORG is pubrules-clean except for three warnings in the namespace 
checker. These are spurious [1] and can be ignored for publication. As 
it says in the pubrules output "please just let the Webmaster know in 
your publication request".

Dave

[1] Specifically the pubules output is:

"""
Error The Namespaces Checker was used for this test. The following is a 
list of URIs that might be (broken) namespace URIs. Note: If they are 
not namespace URIs, please just let the Webmaster know in your 
publication request.

http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/department/co/post/246 (2 occurrences)
-> 303 (See Other) -> 500 (Internal Server Error)

http://reference.data.gov.uk/id/department/co/unit/cabinet-office-communications 
(3 occurrences)
-> 303 (See Other) -> 500 (Internal Server Error)

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-vocab-org-20130625/ (1 occurrence)
-> 404 (Not Found)
"""

The first two are URIs from examples. The URIs are correct but it looks 
like TSO's server is sick just at the moment.

The last one is the URL for where the spec will be when published but 
isn't yet. I've no idea why the pubrules namespace check even looks at 
this URL but doesn't for Data Cube which is using the same respec 
version. But I've wasted *far* too much time fighting respec and 
pubrules to have to energy to dig into this.

Received on Sunday, 23 June 2013 14:09:11 UTC