- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:04:56 -0800
- To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Minutes from today’s meeting. Note that comments were not scribed. https://www.w3.org/2023/02/22-rdf-star-minutes.html Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net > On Feb 22, 2023, at 3:04 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On 21/02/2023 22:38, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >>> On Feb 21, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would like to have some information on what is required for W3C publication of FPWD beyond passing the checks already in place on the GitHub repositories. For example, is it required that all documents have sections on privacy considerations, security considerations, and internationalization considerations? >> >> Ted provided some information in a PR comment [1] >> >>> FPWD is a heartbeat action, as are all the Editors' Drafts that get published between FPWD and CR. FPWD does require group consensus to publish, but there are no requirements about its content, which has even less weight than the content of a WG NOTE, which has almost no weight. An FPWD could be pure boilerplate, or a collection of sections that entirely disagree with each other, or a bunch of Guttenberg Project or Lorem Ipsum text. > That is the process minimum. > > This working group has a mature set of documents, with many interested readers in the community. > > We haven't discussed which github issues the working group will be able to take up yet. > > Andy > >> >>> A pointer to a document on the rules for W3C publication would also be useful. >> >> Probably mostly in the Publication Rules [2] and Process Document [3]. >> >> Generally, the FPWD docs will be prepared with a planned publication date and saved in the repository (for example see the snapshot for rdf-canon [4]). This can be done by adding `?specStatus=FPWD&pubDate=YYYY-MM-DD` to the browser and using the control in the upper right to save the document as HTML, along with files used directly by the finished document. Then, pass it through the pubrules checker [5] and link checker [6]. This sometimes finds minor problems that will need to be corrected. Generally, you can get a URL for a formatted version of the spec after it’s been uploaded using the raw file viewer for the Overview.html in GitHack. >> >> Most of the technical Pubrules requirements are handled by ReSpec automatically based on specStatus. >> >> Once FPWD has been published, the group can decide to use Echidna for subsequent updates automatically via the GitHub action we have in place up until CR. >> >> Gregg >> >> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/9#issuecomment-1437182529 >> [2] https://www.w3.org/2003/05/27-pubrules >> [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#first-wd >> [4] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/tree/main/publication-snapshots/FPWD >> [5] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/ >> [6] https://validator.w3.org/checklink >> >>> peter >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 2/18/23 14:54, Gregg Kellogg wrote: >>>>> We have an Editor’s call scheduled again for this Wednesday [1]. If you have items to discuss, please reply so we can build an agenda. Otherwise, I suggest we keep the slot and Zoom channel open for general discussion in order to preserve normal WG time for more more charter-related discussions. >>>>> >>>>> Gregg Kellogg >>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net >>>>> >>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/28b3790b-0fd4-41e3-bfd4-7deca177f6df >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2023 18:05:22 UTC