Re: a few more JSON-LD editorial comments

[sorry for the previous empty reply]

On 04/04/2013 04:40 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Thursday, April 04, 2013 9:23 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I guess....        My hesitation is that I think abstracts should
>> be talking about the spec, not making claims about the world, such as
>> how often and how well these transforms simplify things -- claims
>> someone could potentially disagree with.
>>
>> But I'm really nitpicking; it's okay.
>>
>> And everything else, below, is fine.
> Great.
>
>
>> So it's just the idlharness thing now?
> Yeah.. The only other thing I'm aware of is the link to the test suite.
> Currently it points to http://json-ld.org/test-suite/. Shall I change that
> to http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-tests/ as we've discussed? I just checked.
> It's not setup yet.

I think so.    Before setting it up, I was waiting to hear feedback on 
the URL (eg json-ld/test-suite).  If I proxy that to
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/tree/master/test-suite we get 
individual test URLs that look like:

http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-tests/tests/compact-0001-context.jsonld

I'm wondering about getting that "/tests" out of there.   Hard to do, 
though.   Whatever.

Also, I see the test suite says it's maintained as a free-for-all. 
That's probably not appropriate, at least while we're going through CR 
(or an LC that might also be a CR).

I suggest that we start to add to the manifests entries like
     "approved": "http://www.w3.org/2013/04/04-rdf-wg-irc#T21-59-26"

... for any test which has been approved by the RDF WG.    (which might 
be a whole bunch at once.)

This way we don't really need much access control -- anyone can see if 
the test has been modified since being approved, and check whether it 
was actually approved by following that link.

Then, to exit CR, we'll need people to be passing "approved" tests.      
This should be explained in the README.

We should also tell people how to submit their test results, and where 
the table of everyone's test results is.

>
>> You might try generating some WDs now, and seeing how they fare on
>> pubrules.
> I will do that tomorrow. What date shall I use? April 11?

Yes.

> In last week's
> telecon we didn't really discuss whether we plan to skip CR, shall I add a
> sentence like (adapted from SPARQL):
>
> The Working Group welcomes reports of implementations, sent to the comments
> address. If we gather sufficient evidence of interoperable implementations,
> the group may request to skip Call for Implementations (Candidate
> Recommendation) drafts and have the next round of publications be Proposed
> Recommendations.
>

Yeah, let's add that text and see how it goes.

           -- Sandro

> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>

Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 22:08:27 UTC