Hi group, As per my action item from the last teleconference here we have the structure review (step 2) of the third test sample with some comments * contact information of the submitter is available; (see comments to the previous test sample) * all necessary files are committed and available; The metadata file is not well-formed The test sample content is not functional (not being interpreted at the server) * all necessary files follow the naming conventions; (see comments to the previous test sample) * all necessary files are valid in their use; (see comments to the previous test sample) * there are no unintentional broken links; OK * all the metadata restrictions are applied, for example: o dates and other values use the correct format; OK o copyright notices and other values are correct; The test sample content includes copyright information that is different from the metadata copyright information o titles, description, and other texts are correct; OK o identifiers exist and have the correct syntax; OK o techniques and locations are referenced correctly; Apparently the locations refer to the server-side language not to the generated content. Is this what we expect? o location pointers are consistent with each other; OK. Initial content review can't be done since the example is not functional Regards, CI. -------------------- Carlos Iglesias CTIC Foundation Science and Technology Park of Gijón 33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain phone: +34 984291212 fax: +34 984390612 email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org URL: http://www.fundacionctic.orgReceived on Monday, 18 December 2006 09:29:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:53:26 UTC