Re: FPWD published

> On May 19, 2023, at 8:34 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/05/2023 16:23, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2023, at 8:16 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>> 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`.
> 
> They are all there - two are wrong (or jumping ahead to the new 1.1. naming)
> 1.1 era short names:
>  sparql11-http-rdf-update
>  rdf-sparql-XMLres
> 
> Presumably short names don't go away, only new ones which are in addition.

+1

Technically, they’re not short-names, which are assigned by a working group, and are published in the document. They URLs that are effectively aliases to the same document, much like https://w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts is now an alias for https://w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts.

>> 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.
> 
> +1
> 
> Are these link short names ones that the WG needs a resolution about? IIRC short names are formally chosen. Or are these link forms "lesser" and don't need that?

We’re not changing anything in any document, merely asking the system team to make sure aliases consistent with our versioning scheme are in place. IIRC, we discussed this when coming up with our short-name strategy. I think this was in the 15 December 2022 meeting: https://www.w3.org/2022/12/15-rdf-star-minutes.html#t01.

Gregg

>    Andy
> 
>> Gregg