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

On 25/05/11 09:37, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> thanks for kicking this off, we have to go through these steps
> indeed...
>
> On May 25, 2011, at 24:50 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> 2. I assume we will do public editor's drafts. What will the IRI of
>> the RDF Concepts draft be?
>
> I am not sure which URI you are asking, but I presume you ask for the
> final IRI of each our documents. That is, actually, an important
> decision this group has to take. Indeed, there are two
> possibilities:
>
> 1. We aim at a set of documents that fully and absolutely supersede
> the old documents. This means we'd continue to use the
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/ for what we call the 'short URI'
> in our document management jargon with, of course, the 'dated URI-s'
> reflecting the current date. This means that, in future, if somebody
> uses the short uri as a reference, he/she will fall on the new
> version of the document. Note that this may lead to some disruptions
> during the development process when users will suddenly find
> themselves reading working drafts. As an example, this is what the
> xml guys did: the http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ URI leads to the latest
> (5th edition as of today) of XML.
>
> 2. We decide to start with a clean plate. In this case we will have
> to decide what the 'short URI' or, more exactly, what the 'short
> name' is (ie, what replaces 'rdf-concepts'). This is definitely a WG
> decision. This is the route taken by the OWL and the SPARQL working
> groups (eg, http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ as opposed to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/).
 >
> I guess it may be possible to use a short name for the development
> time and change this on the last minute to switch to the old names
> but I would not favour that, personally; it may become messy on long
> run. Note also, that it should be possible, if we go for an RDF 1.1
> route, to have a note added to the old RDF document making it
> 'editorially' obsolete when we publish our recs, see, for example,
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/
>
> _Personally_ I would go for RDF 1.1 with option #2. But that is my
> personal choice, with my staff contact or activity lead hat off...

Sandro advised SPARQL-WG (yesterday) that that WG publish using 
/sparql11-query/ until REC then put it at /rdf-sparql-query/ to replace 
the version people find when looking for the REC.

>> 4. I believe it is W3C policy to add the names of additional
>> editors to the list of editor names from previous editions that are
>> already in the spec. Affiliations and contact details of the
>> previous editors may have changed; should an effort be made to
>> contact them and get those details fixed?
>>
>> 5. The specs have a “Series Editor” (Brian McBride). I believe that
>> ReSpec doesn't have such a feature. How to handle this?
>
> Let me answer these two questions in one step.
>
> The only W3C policy is that there are editors that have to be listed,
> and that is it. All other entries like 'previous editors', 'authors',
> 'series editors', etc, are defined and used by working groups and, I
> am afraid, there is no real consistency there. All I can give you is
> some examples.
>
> - The SPARQL WG has indeed decided to refer to the previous editors
> under a separate heading (wherever appropriate). - For RDFa the old
> editors were just listed, and possibly new ones added - OWL 2 started
> fresh and there is no reference to previous editors - the old RDF
> series is the only one where I saw a 'series editor'...

SPARQL Query use xmlspec (it's OK but respec seems to be newer) can do 
that because there is explicit support for this by adding a rile 
attribute: 	
   <author role="Editor">
   ...
   </author>
   <author role="PreviousEditor">
   ...
   </author>


	Andy

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 09:02:58 UTC