Re: Status text for RDF Concepts

David,

So I've saved a pure-HTML version of the document from the ReSpec.js source.

It can be previewed online here [1]. It currently has August 23 as the tentative publication date – that may need updating. We want the shortname /TR/rdf11-concepts .

To get the full spec with all supporting files:

    hg clone https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf
    cd rdf
    hg up -r rdf-concepts-FPWD

Now the rdf-concepts subdirectory contains the spec. Overview.html is the main document. (There's just one other file.)

Off to you – let me know if you need anything else!

Best,
Richard


[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/rdf-concepts-FPWD/rdf-concepts/Overview.html




On 14 Aug 2011, at 02:39, David Wood wrote:

> I'll be back in a couple of days and will issue the transition request on Monday (probably).  All the responses to the Call for Consensus were positive (unless I missed something), so we are ready to move forward.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 16:00, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 
>> * Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2011-08-13 19:59+0100]
>>> I'm preparing rdf-concepts for FPWD:
>>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/rdf-concepts-FPWD/rdf-concepts/index.html
>>> 
>>> The status text, minus ReSpec-generated boilerplate, reads as follows:
>>> 
>>>> This document is work in progress towards a revision of the RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax Recommendation, and is intended to eventually replace that document. It is part of a larger effort to revise the RDF specifications as published in 2004. The most significant changes from the 2004 edition are: modified string literals, a section on skolemization of blank nodes, and many updated references to other specifications (including a change in terminology from “URI references” to “IRIs”). A fuller list of changes that have been made to date is provided in Appendix A. Various areas of work to be tackled in upcoming working drafts are highlighted throughout the document, but should not yet be understood as an exhaustive list.
>>> 
>>> Any comments?
>>> 
>>> Assuming this is ok, what is the next step towards FPWD publication?
>> 
>> There's a process document section
>> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#first-wd> but it's more
>> about the promise to the community than it is a recipe, which boils
>> down to a transition request and a publication request. The latter is
>> trivial and here's a draft of the former so we can fill in the blanks:
>> 
>> [[
>> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
>> To: webreq@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org, chairs@w3.org
>> Cc: Thomas Roessler <roessler@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
>> Subject: Transition Request: RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax First Public WD
>> 
>> This transition request is intended to follow
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=fpwd-wd-tr
>> 
>> The RDF WG would like to publish a first Working Draft of "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax":
>> WG decision to publish:
>> <@@>
>> 
>> editor's draft:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/@@/rdf-concepts/index.html
>> 
>> short name:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts11/
>> 
>> Publication date:
>> soonest practical
>> ]]
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard
>> 
>> -- 
>> -ericP
>> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 15:33:09 UTC