The timing may not work! Re: PER-s for RDFa 1.1

Guys,

preparing the documentation this may be very tight. Administratively, we need

- preparing the documents (we are close to be done)
- we need to have a formal vote of the WG to advance the document; that may be done by email but it still takes time.
- ask for a transition to the directors, and that needs to be out in the public for at least 5 business days
- get the green light from the director(s), in this case Philippe le Hégaret (not Ralph because he is our Domain Lead now), hopefully without a transition call

If we want to have that done by the 11th, we need to send out the transition call request on Wednesday (that can be done, I will have all the ducks lined up today) but we would have to get the necessary votes in by, say, Wednesday morning, for which Manu needs to send out the email on Monday, meaning that the documents should be available today or tomorrow morning my time. Doable, but unnecessary tight.

I would propose to shift the publication by a few days, namely to the 16th of December. There is no need for the rush, just let it out before the moratorium, so that we can then publish the recs early February.

Ivan




> On 27 Nov 2014, at 11:55 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Manu, Ralph, Shane,
> 
> we have a pending issue that we are now in position to close. Per[1] we had to pending issues in HTML+RDFa, waiting for the HTML5 and the RDF1.1 recommendations to be published. This is now done. This means that we would have re-publish the HTML+RDFa1.1 document with following actions:
> 
> - remove the note in the Status section of [1]
> - in section 3.1 step 9 the last sentence should be removed; @datetime is now normative
> - in section 3.1 step 11 the last sentence should simply say: "This feature is non-normative" (Alas!, due to the delay of DOM3, the HTML datatype is not normative in RDF1.1 Concepts[2]...)
> 
> This is the minimum that we should do, leading to a PER transition request, and a republication of [1] as an (Edited) Recommendation. Once that done, the RDFa WG[3] should be formally closed.
> 
> However, we should probably do a bit more. The errata document for RDFa[4] also contains some minor errors. All of them are, as far as I can see, editorial. Caveat: that means we have to republish (as PER-s) not only HTML+RDFa, but RDFa Lite, RDFa Core, and XHTML+RDFa. Plus some error in the RDFa Primer note. Ie, the whole lot.
> 
> I think we should do this asap and close the RDFa 1.1 group. If we all agree, we may be able to issue a formal AC review call for the PER before Xmas; I guess the work required is pretty insignificant. (There is a publication moratorium starting the 19th of December up to the 5th of January.) Manu, Shane, if you have problems generating the new versions for whatever reasons, I can also do these editings myself.
> 
> Ralph, I presume we can handle everything by email, we do not need a formal transition call for this; we are talking about PER-s.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-html-rdfa-20130822/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/errata.html
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704