Re: FPWD published

> On May 19, 2023, at 8:16 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/05/2023 21:48, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> On May 17, 2023, at 1:21 PM, Timothée Haudebourg <timothee.haudebourg@spruceid.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi, I just noticed the https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ URL (without the "12" version tag) also serves the FPWD. I wasn't expecting that, I thought this URL would only show the final version and not the drafts (or maybe just a link to the drafts?). Maybe that's how it is supposed to work I don't know I'm not that familiar with the release process. What I'm worried about though is it seems impossible to access the RDF1.1 version anymore. There is no link to it. The "History" link only shows the FPWD.
>> That is how versioned numbers work, rdf-schema will point to the latest version, in this case the 1.2 FPWD. Note that it has a “Latest Recommendation” link that should point to rdf11-schema, which should get you to the 1.1 version of the document (This works for RDF Concepts), but I think those 1.1 versions were never properly named.
>> The pubs team should make sure that rdf11-schema points to https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/>, which PA should be able to help facilitate. Also, the 1.2 version “prevRecShortname” should be changed to “rdf11-schema”, when that points to the right place. There should also be rdf10-schema links.
> 
> A fix:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/21
> 
> sets the prevRecURI and then the "Latest Recommendation" is set to something that works.
> 
> SPARQL docs use prevRecURI.
> 
> (They could be updated to use prevRecShortname now. Does this matter?)

It doesn’t seem so; from the docs, if `prevRecURI` is not specified, the reference is taken from `prevRecShortname`.

>> This looks like a pervasive issue now, as the previous recommendation links were, e.g., to “rdf-schema” and similar in other recommendations.
> 
> I think only "rdf-schema" is affected. There is no rdf11-schema, the others have rdf11 names or a different short name.
> 
> == rdf-concepts
>      prevRecShortname:     "rdf11-concepts",
> == rdf-primer
>      prevRecShortname:     "rdf11-primer",
> == rdf-schema
>      prevRecShortname:     "rdf-schema",
> == rdf-semantics
>      prevRecShortname:     "rdf11-mt",
> == rdf-trig
>      prevRecShortname:     "trig",
> == rdf-turtle
>      prevRecShortname:     "turtle",
> == rdf-n-quads
>      prevRecShortname:     "n-quads",
> == rdf-n-triples
>      prevRecShortname:     "n-triples",
> == rdf-xml
>      prevRecShortname:     "rdf-syntax-grammar",

Those are the previous shortnames, and they could be used. I suggest that we have in place the links for rdf10-, sparql10-, rdf11-, sparql11 as alternatives. We may or may not actually use these when referencing shortnames.

Gregg

>> To be clear, rdf10-xxx should get you to the 1.0 version of xxx, similar for sparql10-xxx. THe rdf11-xxx (and sparql11-xxx) links should get you to those versions, and we’ll need to update the “prevRecShortname” in our documents accordingly.
> 
> FWIW SPARQL 1.0 are "rdf-sparql...."
> 
> "rdf-sparql-query"
> "rdf-sparql-XMLres"
> "rdf-sparql-protocol"
> 
>    Andy
> 
>> Gregg
>>> -- 
>>> Timothée
>>> 
>>> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 May 2023 15:24:02 UTC