W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > July 2016

Re: Publication request: OWL Time 'FPWD'

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:46:42 +0100
To: Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>, Webmaster <webreq@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Scott Simmons <ssimmons@opengeospatial.org>, Simon Cox <simon.cox@csiro.au>, "Little, Chris" <chris.little@metoffice.gov.uk>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Message-ID: <c844a2ca-372e-6882-e96b-e82c56222b35@w3.org>
Thanks Denis,

I'm not surprised but I was just following orders, honestly...

Anyway, the WD is now installed (again) at 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-owl-time-20160712/ and passes PubRules, 
modulo the issues highlighted yesterday wrt to:

- joint copyright with OGC;
- a namespace checker that after all these years still has problems with 
RDF ;-)

Ralph's approval is in Team space at



On 12/07/2016 07:22, Denis Ah-Kang wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> I assume the document you want to publish is
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-owl-time-20160712/.
> If the document has a previous version, it can't be a FPWD. You must
> update it as a WD. IPP will then detect the previous version was
> published under a different WG and trigger a CfE.
> Denis
> On 07/11/2016 08:16 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>> Hi Denis,
>> This is a publication request for the 'FPWD' of the Time Ontology in
>> OWL. I am confident that Ralph will approve the transition request [1]
>> that contains a lot of the info you need. However, this is an unusual
>> one for several reasons.
>> Firstly, as you're used to by now, the copyright notice and logos are
>> customised to account for this also being an OGC publication. Text used
>> is exactly the same as /TR/vocab-ssn/ for example.
>> What's doubly unusual is that this really is an FPWD - but one that has
>> a previous version. This is because the previous version was published
>> in 2006 by a different WG. We need to go through the FPWD process to
>> trigger the IPR claims etc. I don't want to remove the previous version
>> links (as PubRules screams at me to do of course) because that old link
>> is still relevant.
>> I see from https://www.w3.org/TR/tr-date-all#tr_2006 that the original
>> one is retired - which is news to me. People have been using that spec
>> since it was first published. Not sure why it's flagged as retired. It
>> shouldn't be AFAIAC.
>> The draft should appear at
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/#tr_Data_on_the_Web
>> PubRules also doesn't like DOIs. Several of the references have DOIs
>> rather than proper URIs, which lead to redirects, but that's what DOIs
>> are for.
>> There is a reference, not a link, to
>> http://www.daml.org/2003/02/fips55/id.owl#c049, that the namespace
>> checker doesn't like as it doesn't dereference but it is correct.
>> Hope this is all OK.
>> Cheers
>> Phil.
>> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2016JulSep/0013.html


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 09:45:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC