W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Preparing editor's drafts -- Q's for the team contacts

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 11:51:26 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=oPurayELh-6p3NM2dNe9YjcU8Zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 25 May 2011 11:37, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> thanks for kicking this off, we have to go through these steps indeed...


I'd like to get RDFS into Mercurial ASAP and give it a 'once over', to
get it into a state where it can track WG decisions. Also I'm quite
curious whether it could use RDFa, ... or that might be too 'meta'.

>> 1. I assume there will be a joint Mercurial repository for the WG. Where is it? I can keep my work under version control in a local repository for now, but I'd like to start collaborating with my co-editor rather sooner than later.
> I think setting up such a repository asap is good. Note that I have never used mercurial before, so we will have to learn as we go (unless Sandro or Eric have already used it...)

> The current set of archives for various other working groups are at:
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg
> we have to define what the name of our archive is (I guess 'rdf' is the obvious answer), and who the 'contact' persons are (I guess Sandro and I at the minimum, it may be wise to add somebody else; this will become a big archive). Once we have these decisions, we can put in a request to the system team:
> [[[
> • Requesting a Mercurial repository. Email sysreq@w3.org with the following information:
>   • name for the repository (see examples)
>   • contact for this repository
>   • groups that are allowed to push changes to this repository (one or more DBWG groups; additional groups may be added later)
> ]]]

I've been through the basic process with the POI WG and yeah, there's
not a lot to it - as above. We just pick a name (yes, 'rdf' is fine),
and then someone from team sends a request for a new repo to Sysreq,
ideally copying the other team and chairs so everyone's in the loop. I
suggest you just do that rather than have a consensus process for
deciding our repo name :)

> I guess the obvious answer to the last question is to allow for only our group to edit. Our DBWG id is 46168

Sounds about right

>> 2. I assume we will do public editor's drafts. What will the IRI of the RDF Concepts draft be?

I think we can get the basic specs into public Mercurial without
finalising all of this.

We also need to think about managing / evolving the (currently
CVS-archived) namespace documents for RDF and RDFS.


Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 08:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:07 UTC