Re: Publication request: OWL Time 'FPWD'

I love our archiving system.

Thanks Denis.

Cheers

Phil.

On 12/07/2016 12:33, Denis Ah-Kang wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Thanks for updating the document. It's now published on /TR
> and Xueyuan will soon issue the CfE.
> FYI, the document was marked as 'Retired' from a previous request [1].
> I removed that bit since it's being developed again.
>
> Denis
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Team/w3t-archive/2009Apr/0370.html
>
> On 07/12/2016 01:46 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
>> 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 12:39:04 UTC