W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:33:50 -0700
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF785DB0A6.863EEE6B-ON88257A7E.0070E13F-88257A7E.0070F764@us.ibm.com>
Steve,
The draft looks good. Thanks!

Everyone,
I urge you to start reviewing the draft and raising issues as necessary. 
Once again, I suggest you consider the questions listed in our charter [1] 
as a starting point. Ask yourself whether you think the draft addresses 
the questions appropriately.

To be efficient about this I think it is important that we leverage the 
issue tracker [2]. If you are ensure, post to the mailing list asking for 
clarification. If you see a problem, have a look to see if anyone else as 
already raised the issue and if not create a new one.

As a group we will review the raised issues on our calls and dispose of 
them. Issues we accept will be marked as open and referenced in the draft 
prior to publication. These will then constitute the core of our work 
moving forward.

Please, remember that we need to have all issues raised by 10/08 to be on 
schedule [3]. This isn't to say you won't be able/allowed to raise any 
other issues later on, just that they won't be referenced in the First 
Public Working Draft to be published by the end of October.

Regards.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter#issues
[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page#Timeline
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Steve Speicher wrote on 09/19/2012 12:17:36 PM:

> From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 09/19/2012 12:25 PM
> Subject: ACTION-10: First Editor's Draft is available!
> 
> I have completed ACTION-10 to convert member submission to an Editor's 
> Draft [1].
> 
> This is an "as-is" migration from member submission [2] to follow W3C 
> draft format.  I have also produced a HTML diff [3].
> 
> There are a few editorial items I need to address:
> - What namespace URI should we use for new terms defined in this 
document?
> - Validate the shortname for this as 'ldbp'
> I assume these will either be created as official issues or  actions. 
For 
> now I just made a reminder for editors in the doc.
> 
> Now that ACTION-10 is complete,  I will start incorporating some of the 
> actions and minor editorial issues found since published as member 
> submission.
> 
> Fellow editors (Michael/John), once you have contributed an edit feel 
free 
> to add yourself as an editor.
> 
> Note: the diff [3] isn't perfect, for example the new draft uses 
ReSpec.js 
> which pulls in boilerplate HTML and the diff struggles with this a bit.
> Note: [1] and [3] have an annoying red box at the top right since biblio 

> entries are missing, I have a pull request pending [4].  Robin says 
he'll 
> get to it shortly.
> 
> [1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp.html
> [2] - http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/
> [3] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldbp-diff-20120919.html
> [4] - https://github.com/darobin/respec/pull/73
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher
> IBM Rational Software
> OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
> http://open-services.net
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 20:34:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:31 UTC