- From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 10:25:31 +0100
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi, On 2 May 2011, at 15:28, Axel Polleres wrote: > Dear all, > > I will hopefully upload a formal agenda hopefully later today at the usual place: > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Agenda-2011-05-03 > > but here is alrady what is planned for tomorrow: > > We shall go through all documents: > > 1) check with editors whether ready for LC publication > - any open issues on to_last_call wiki? > - any critical reviewer comments open? > - any critical comments-list comments open? > - pubrules check done? For the Update side Remaining issue: - do we need USING DEFAULT -- PROPOSED: move that to "Postponed Issues" http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/update-1.1/update.html to be published at http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-sparql11-update-20101014/ some remaining issues: * It must indicate that this is a Last Call Working Draft. => Is there a standard text that all WD from the Group should use ? * It must include the name of the W3C group that produced the document. The name must be a link to a public page for the group. => There's already a link to the group, but seems the pubrules checker do not like this. How others handled this ? * All proposed XML namespaces created by the publication of the document must follow URIs for W3C Namespaces. http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-update-20110512/ (1 occurrence) -> 404 (Not Found) => I guess that's ok when we publish ? Alex. NB: Paul, Axel, Do not re-run the XML -> HTML script if you update the doc for the remaining issue as several pubrules had to be done directly in the HTML file > 2) PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft > (we need a formal vote there, I assume for minor open issues, this can also vary to) > PROPOSED: publish [docname] as Last call working draft modulo ACTION-XYZ > (i.e. allow us to assign actions to reviewers/editors to resolve minor issues bilaterally without the need for another formal group decision) > > If editors could answer to the subitems of 1) prior to the call tomorrow, that might help us! > > best, > Axel > > >
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 09:26:00 UTC