RDF 1.1 Concepts Pubrules status

As it was discussed today, I thought I’d run one of the current RDF specs through the pubrules checker. I tried https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ against https://www.w3.org/pubrules/, which resulted in three errors:

    • Cannot find the <p id="w3c-state"> element for profile and date.

Please make sure the <p id="w3c-state">W3C @@Profile, DD Month Year</p> element can be selected by document.getElementById('w3c-state'); 
If you are using bikeshed, please update to the latest version.
    • BugPubrules is having a hard time identifying the profile of the document "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax" from its w3c-state element; Please make sure the <p id="w3c-state"> is in a valid format: <p id="w3c-state">W3C @@type of the document@@ DD Month YYYY</p>
Recommendation Track
        • W3C state element for First Public Working Draft
        • W3C state element for Working Draft
        • W3C state element for Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
        • W3C state element for Candidate Recommendation Draft
        • W3C state element for Proposed Recommendation
        • W3C state element for Recommendation
        • W3C state element for Rescinded Recommendation
        • W3C state element for Obsolete Recommendation
        • W3C state element for Superseded Recommendation
        • W3C state element for Discontinued Draft
Note Track
        • W3C state element for Group Draft Note
        • W3C state element for Group Note
        • W3C state element for Statement
Registry Track
        • W3C state element for Draft Registry
        • W3C state element for Candidate Registry
        • W3C state element for Candidate Registry Draft
        • W3C state element for Registry
Submissions
        • W3C state element for Member Submission
    • Bug
Report a bug
[EXCEPTION] The document date could not be parsed.

My guess is the best thing to do for this, and other docs, is to get them into their own repos (w3c/rdf-concepts, in this case), and do the minimum necessary to get them working with modern ReSpec, along with necessary status/version changes (e.g., they won’t be related to the RDF Working Group, which no longer exists, email lists are wrong, etc.), and push them out as FPWD. Alternatively, work from appropriate sections in the CG report can at least be pointed to using editorial notes, so the direction the specs are going is apparent.

As for tests, pretty much all related specs have tests now maintained in https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests, and I would recommend continuing to use that repo, rather than move them back into each specification-specific repository.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2022 22:01:11 UTC