- 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>
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 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/w3t-comm/2016Jul/0172.html Cheers Phil 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 http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 09:45:43 UTC