W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Publication Request Form / System

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:39:10 -0700
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <93A27ADA-D0BE-4882-A1A7-0365AFE8EFEA@greggkellogg.net>
To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote:

> On 06/20/2013 12:51 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> Hi, Gregg, Alexandre-
>> 
>> Maybe I'm misreading or misunderstanding your point here...
>> 
>> I agree (and was going to suggest) that we add markup (rdfa, microdata,
>> maybe data-* attributes... I don't care which) on all the key pieces of
>> metadata (e.g., spec name, pub date, status, URLs of latest, previous,
>> and editor's drafts, authors and editors, WG, comments list, etc.), to
>> make it easy to extract and reuse.
> 
> As I said, there are some requirements in the system that needs to be
> enforced to follow the process. The good thing is that tools can
> automate all of it. ReSpec currently emits much more information than
> what's need by the system, so a specification could even be manually
> annotated the first time, and then there would be few modifications to
> do. What's important is that we would be able to easily and reliably
> find the inconsistencies and mistakes.
> 
> Because of the need to bind data across documents, and to link to
> other entities (eg. the editors, the WG page, the document license,
> etc.), RDFa looks like the perfect toolkit, because it was made for
> that kind of use-cases.
> 
> Again, we're just exploring what's possible.
> 
>> 
>> But that code below seems like overkill...
> 
> What you call code is just the Turtle-equivalent of the RDFa from the
> spec. Gregg posted that so that I could focus on the data. Nothing to
> be afraid of. Nobody should be restrained from adding more information
> than needed by a specific system that can always ignore it.

Yes, I think there is probably more good stuff we could publish as well, it's easy to ignore what you don't need. Having the whole abstract may be overkill (maybe not, though), but having the section structure and titles could be very useful for deep-linking into specs. We could also add entries for all definitions in the document.

Gregg

> Alexandre.
> 
>> 
>> Regards-
>> -Doug
>> 
>> On 6/20/13 12:38 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 06/20/2013 12:03 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 06/20/2013 10:37 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, folks-
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have a suggestion for our publication workflow that I think
>>>>>>> would provide clarity and consistency: a publication request
>>>>>>> form.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Already in the pipe, partially implemented and Webmaster-only
>>>>>> for now as development is making progress and priorities are
>>>>>> sorted out. But that's clearly the plan for the future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This would be a form that contains all the fields needed for
>>>>>>> each stage of the publication process, including spec name,
>>>>>>> shortname(s), URLs of Editor's Draft and TR draft, abstract,
>>>>>>> WG name, WG approval to publish, planned publication date,
>>>>>>> news-item blurb, optional list of changes, notes (for
>>>>>>> anything out of the ordinary), etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Believe me, you don't to fill these values by hand, it's
>>>>>> highly error-prone. There is currently a service that
>>>>>> "extracts" some of the informations from the spec, but it's a
>>>>>> bit buggy and does not capture everything. The long-term
>>>>>> alternative is to make the metadata available directly in the
>>>>>> spec, could be generated by ReSpec and other tools directly.
>>>>>> That's fairly easy, except for editors which must be bound to
>>>>>> the database. This one would be easy if people can agree on
>>>>>> using URLs to speak about the editors, though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the doRDFa variable is set (to "1.1", I believe) in the
>>>>> respecConfig, it ends up generating good RDFa for all of this
>>>>> stuff in the spec. It's been optional, and only included in a
>>>>> couple of specs from RDF-related specs AFAIK. It seems to me that
>>>>> there's really no downside to making this the default (perhaps
>>>>> with an option to turn it off). This would make extracting such
>>>>> information from the specs themselves much less error prone.
>>>> 
>>>> That's interesting. I've never looked carefully at what is
>>>> generated by ReSpec there. Can you please point me at a recent spec
>>>> embedding some RDFa? I can have a quick sense about how much work
>>>> there would be to make it usable on our side.
>>>> 
>>>> Alexandre.
>>> 
>>> Look in the latest version of RDFa 1.1 Core, for example. For me,
>>> this yields the following:
>>> 
>>> @prefix bibo: <http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/> . @prefix dcterms:
>>> <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> . @prefix foaf:
>>> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> . @prefix rdf:
>>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . @prefix xhv:
>>> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#> . @prefix xsd:
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
>>> 
>>> <> a bibo:Document; dcterms:title "RDFa Core 1.1"; dcterms:abstract
>>> """Abstract The current Web is primarily made up of an enormous
>>> number of documents that have been created using HTML. These
>>> documents contain significant amounts of structured data, which is
>>> largely unavailable to tools and applications. When publishers can
>>> express this data more completely, and when tools can read it, a new
>>> world of user functionality becomes available, letting users transfer
>>> structured data between applications and web sites, and allowing
>>> browsing applications to improve the user experience: an event on a
>>> web page can be directly imported into a user's desktop calendar; a
>>> license on a document can be detected so that users can be informed
>>> of their rights automatically; a photo's creator, camera setting
>>> information, resolution, location and topic can be published as
>>> easily as the original photo itself, enabling structured search and
>>> sharing. RDFa Core is a specification for attributes to express
>>> structured data in any markup language. The embedded data already
>>> available in the markup language (e.g., HTML) can often be reused by
>>> the RDFa markup, so that publishers don't need to repeat significant
>>> data in the document content. The underlying abstract representation
>>> is RDF [RDF-PRIMER], which lets publishers build their own
>>> vocabulary, extend others, and evolve their vocabulary with maximal
>>> interoperability over time. The expressed structure is closely tied
>>> to the data, so that rendered data can be copied and pasted along
>>> with its relevant structure. The rules for interpreting the data are
>>> generic, so that there is no need for different rules for different
>>> formats; this allows authors and publishers of data to define their
>>> own formats without having to update software, register formats via a
>>> central authority, or worry that two formats may interfere with each
>>> other. RDFa shares some of the same goals with microformats
>>> [MICROFORMATS]. Whereas microformats specify both a syntax for
>>> embedding structured data into HTML documents and a vocabulary of
>>> specific terms for each microformat, RDFa specifies only a syntax and
>>> relies on independent specification of terms (often called
>>> vocabularies or taxonomies) by others. RDFa allows terms from
>>> multiple independently-developed vocabularies to be freely intermixed
>>> and is designed such that the language can be parsed without
>>> knowledge of the specific vocabulary being used. This document is a
>>> detailed syntax specification for RDFa, aimed at:
>>> 
>>> those looking to create an RDFa Processor, and who therefore need a
>>> detailed description of the parsing rules; those looking to integrate
>>> RDFa into a new markup language; those looking to recommend the use
>>> of RDFa within their organization, and who would like to create some
>>> guidelines for their users; anyone familiar with RDF, and who wants
>>> to understand more about what is happening 'under the hood', when an
>>> RDFa Processor runs.
>>> 
>>> For those looking for an introduction to the use of RDFa and some
>>> real-world examples, please consult the [RDFA-PRIMER].
>>> 
>>> How to Read this Document First, if you are not familiar with either
>>> RDFa or RDF, and simply want to add RDFa to your documents, then you
>>> may find the RDFa Primer [RDFA-PRIMER] to be a better introduction.
>>> If you are already familiar with RDFa, and you want to examine the
>>> processing rules  perhaps to create an RDFa Processor  then you'll
>>> find the Processing Model section of most interest. It contains an
>>> overview of each of the processing steps, followed by more detailed
>>> sections, one for each rule. If you are not familiar with RDFa, but
>>> you are familiar with RDF, then you might find reading the Syntax
>>> 
>>> Overview useful, before looking at the Processing
>>> 
>>> Model since it gives a range of examples of markup that use RDFa.
>>> Seeing some examples first should make reading the processing rules
>>> easier. If you are not familiar with RDF, then you might want to take
>>> a look at the section on RDF Terminology before trying to do too much
>>> with RDFa. Although RDFa is designed to be easy to author  and
>>> authors don't need to understand RDF to use it  anyone writing
>>> applications that consume RDFa will need to understand RDF. There is
>>> a lot of material about RDF on the web, and a growing range of tools
>>> that support RDFa. This document only contains enough background on
>>> RDF to make the goals of RDFa more clear. RDFa is a way of expressing
>>> RDF-style relationships using simple attributes in existing markup
>>> languages such as HTML. RDF is fully internationalized, and permits
>>> the use of Internationalized Resource Identifiers, or IRIs. You will
>>> see the term 'IRI' used throughout this specification. Even if you
>>> are not familiar with the term IRI, you probably have seen the term
>>> 'URI' or 'URL'. IRIs are an extension of URIs that permits the use of
>>> characters outside those of plain ASCII. RDF allows the use of these
>>> characters, and so does RDFa. This specification has been careful to
>>> use the correct term, IRI, to make it clear that this is the case.
>>> Even though this specification exclusively references IRIs, it is
>>> possible that a Host Language will restrict the syntax for its
>>> attributes to a subset of IRIs (e.g., @href in HTML5).  Regardless
>>> of validation constraints in Host Languages, an RDFa Processor is
>>> capable of processing IRIs.
>>> 
>>> """; dcterms:issued "2012-06-07T05:00:00+0000"^^xsd:dateTime;
>>> dcterms:language "en"; dcterms:publisher [ a foaf:Organization;
>>> foaf:homepage <http://www.w3.org/>; foaf:name "World Wide Web
>>> Consortium"]; dcterms:references
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>,
>>> <http://microformats.org>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids-2004-03-17>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-testcases-20040210>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-rdfa-primer-20120607>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014>,
>>> <http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c052348_ISO_IEC_19757-2_2008(E).zip>,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> <http://www.megginson.com/downloads/SAX/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-widgets-uri-20110927>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-1-20120405/>;
>>> dcterms:replaces <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-rdfa-core-20120508/>;
>>> dcterms:requires
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-overview-20091027/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-rdf-based-semantics-20091027/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210>,
>>> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>,
>>> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20120607/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/>; bibo:chapter
>>> <#abstract>, <#sotd>, <#toc>, <#s_motivation>, <#s_Syntax_overview>,
>>> <#s_rdfterminology>, <#conformance>, <#s_syntax>, <#s_curies>,
>>> <#s_model>, <#s_rdfaindetail>, <#s_initialcontexts>,
>>> <#s_vocab_expansion>, <#s_datatypes>, <#vocabulary>, <#a_history>,
>>> <#a_acks>, <#references>; bibo:editor ([ a foaf:Person; foaf:mbox
>>> <mailto:ben@adida.net>; foaf:name "Ben Adida"] [ a foaf:Person;
>>> foaf:mbox <mailto:mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com>; foaf:name "Mark
>>> Birbeck"] [ a foaf:Person; foaf:homepage
>>> <http://blog.halindrome.com>; foaf:mbox <mailto:shane@aptest.com>;
>>> foaf:name "Shane McCarron"] [ a foaf:Person; foaf:homepage
>>> <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>; foaf:mbox <mailto:ivan@w3.org>;
>>> foaf:name "Ivan Herman"]); bibo:subtitle "Syntax and processing rules
>>> for embedding RDF through attributes"; xhv:license
>>> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright>;
>>> xhv:stylesheet <http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-REC> .
>>> 
>>> <#web-service-output-graph-preference> bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-01#resolution_1> .
>>> 
>>> <#T-IRI-reference> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#a-description-of-rdfa-in-rdf-terms> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#a_acks> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#a_history> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0> .
>>> 
>>> <#abstract> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#how-to-read-this-document>
>>> .
>>> 
>>> <#accessing-the-processor-graph> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:issue [ a
>>> bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-01#resolution_1>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue] .
>>> 
>>> <#attribute_roles> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#chaining-with--property-and--typeof> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#changing-the-evaluation-context> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#setting-the-current-subject> .
>>> 
>>> <#compact-uri-expressions> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#conformance> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#processorconf>,
>>> <#hostlangconf>, <#xmlrdfaconformance> .
>>> 
>>> <#determining-the-subject-with-neither--about-nor--typeof> a
>>> bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#inheriting-subject-from--resource>,
>>> <#inheriting-an-anonymous-subject> .
>>> 
>>> <#evaluation-context> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#examples> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#general-use-of-curies-in-attributes> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#graphs> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#hostlangconf> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#how-to-read-this-document> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#incomplete-triples> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#informative-references> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#inheriting-an-anonymous-subject> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#inheriting-subject-from--resource> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#iri-object-resolution> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#using--resource-to-set-the-object>,
>>> <#using--href-or--src-to-set-the-subject>, <#incomplete-triples> .
>>> 
>>> <#language-tags> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#list-generation> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#major-differences-with-rdfa-syntax-1.0> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#markup-fragments-and-rdfa> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#normative-references> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#object-resolution> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#object-resolution-for-the--property-attribute>,
>>> <#iri-object-resolution> .
>>> 
>>> <#object-resolution-for-the--property-attribute> a bibo:Chapter;
>>> bibo:chapter <#plain-literals-1>, <#typed-literals-1>,
>>> <#s-xml-literals> .
>>> 
>>> <#overview> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#plain-literals> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#plain-literals-1> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#language-tags> .
>>> 
>>> <#processor-graph-reporting> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#processor-graph-terms> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#processor-status> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#accessing-the-processor-graph>, <#processor-graph-terms>;
>>> bibo:issue [ a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-15#resolution_1>] .
>>> 
>>> <#processorconf> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#rdfa-attributes> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#references> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#normative-references>,
>>> <#informative-references> .
>>> 
>>> <#s-xml-literals> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#s_Completing_Incomplete_Triples> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#s_Syntax_overview> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#rdfa-attributes>, <#examples> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_blankNodes> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:issue [ a bibo:Issue;
>>> bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-10-21#resolution_3>] .
>>> 
>>> <#s_chaining> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#s_curieprocessing> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#scoping-of-prefix-mappings>,
>>> <#general-use-of-curies-in-attributes>, <#s_terms>,
>>> <#use-of-curies-in-specific-attributes>, <#s_blankNodes>; bibo:issue
>>> [ a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-01#resolution_3>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-20#resolution_2>] .
>>> 
>>> <#s_curies> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#why-curies-and-not-qnames>
>>> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_datatypes> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#xml-schema-definition>, <#xml-dtd-definition> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_expansion_control> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#s_vocab_guidelines> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_initialcontexts> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:issue [ a bibo:Issue;
>>> bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-10-21#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-10-21#resolution_2>] .
>>> 
>>> <#s_model> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#overview>,
>>> <#evaluation-context>, <#s_chaining>, <#s_curieprocessing>,
>>> <#s_sequence>, <#processor-status>, <#vocabulary-expansion> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_motivation> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#s_rdfaindetail> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#changing-the-evaluation-context>,
>>> <#s_Completing_Incomplete_Triples>, <#object-resolution>,
>>> <#list-generation> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_rdfterminology> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#statements>,
>>> <#triples>, <#T-IRI-reference>, <#plain-literals>,
>>> <#typed-literals>, <#turtle>, <#graphs>, <#compact-uri-expressions>,
>>> <#markup-fragments-and-rdfa>, <#a-description-of-rdfa-in-rdf-terms>
>>> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_sequence> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:issue [ a bibo:Issue;
>>> bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-22#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-22#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-07-22#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-13#ISSUE__2d_62__3a____40_prefix_processing_order>,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-02-14#resolution_3>,
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-13#resolution_1>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-13#resolution_3>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-06-17#resolution_2>;
>>> bibo:issue [ a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-13#ISSUE__2d_60__3a__XMLLiteral_context_preservation>]],
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> [ a bibo:Issue;
>>> bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-11-10#resolution_2>], [
>>> a bibo:Issue; bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-13#resolution_2>] .
>>> 
>>> <#s_syntax> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter <#attribute_roles>,
>>> <#white_space> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_terms> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#s_vocab_entailment> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#s_vocab_expansion> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#s_vocab_expansion_details>, <#s_expansion_control> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_vocab_expansion_details> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#s_vocab_entailment> .
>>> 
>>> <#s_vocab_guidelines> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#scoping-of-prefix-mappings> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#setting-the-current-subject> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#the-current-document>, <#using--about>,
>>> <#typing-resources-with--typeof>,
>>> <#determining-the-subject-with-neither--about-nor--typeof> .
>>> 
>>> <#sotd> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#statements> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#term-prefix-definitions-vocabulary> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#the-current-document> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#toc> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#triples> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#turtle> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#typed-literals> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#typed-literals-1> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#typing-resources-with--typeof> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#chaining-with--property-and--typeof> .
>>> 
>>> <#use-of-curies-in-specific-attributes> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#using--about> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#using--href-or--src-to-set-the-subject> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#using--resource-to-set-the-object> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#vocabulary> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:chapter
>>> <#term-prefix-definitions-vocabulary>, <#processor-graph-reporting>,
>>> <#vocabulary-relationship> .
>>> 
>>> <#vocabulary-expansion> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#vocabulary-relationship> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#white_space> a bibo:Chapter; bibo:issue [ a bibo:Issue;
>>> bibo:affirmedBy
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-05-20#resolution_1>] .
>>> 
>>> <#why-curies-and-not-qnames> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#xml-dtd-definition> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#xml-schema-definition> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> <#xmlrdfaconformance> a bibo:Chapter .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Gregg
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/
>>> 
>>>>> Gregg
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anyone could fill out this form, though typically it would be
>>>>>>> the staff contact's responsibility; once submitted, the
>>>>>>> publication request goes into the DB, and emails to the
>>>>>>> appropriate people and lists (chairs list, domain lead, staff
>>>>>>> contacts, marcomm, webreq, etc.) are sent out automagically.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In addition, it's queued up in a list/tool (maybe team-only,
>>>>>>> but with a public view) that lets the domain lead and/or
>>>>>>> director click a checkbox to approve the publication if
>>>>>>> necessary; this would also generate the correct emails. This
>>>>>>> list would include crucial status information, to make it
>>>>>>> easier to track what stages have been done for the
>>>>>>> publication, and what is blocking, making it consistent and
>>>>>>> easy to review and approve without hunting through email
>>>>>>> lists.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Some odd cases would need to be done by regular email, of
>>>>>>> course, but the vast majority of spec publications would be
>>>>>>> handled by this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That needs some reflection. In practice, we've seen people
>>>>>> asking for exceptions (whether they are legitimate or not is
>>>>>> another question :-). The system must take that into account,
>>>>>> it's not that easy, unless we enforce the rule "no exception,
>>>>>> follow the process".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This would be an optional tool, though staff contacts would
>>>>>>> be encouraged to use it; if the pub requests came through
>>>>>>> email, the staff contact or webmaster could just make sure
>>>>>>> they are filed in this system correctly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Someone once suggested to have a transition period (something
>>>>>> like a year) so that existing specs can be migrated, then it
>>>>>> would become the norm. The Webmaster's time would be more
>>>>>> useful helping for these migrations rather than having to deal
>>>>>> with the exceptions forever.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This would empower WG participants, and could free up some of
>>>>>>> the more tedious time from staff contacts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1  oh and Webmaster's time as well, let's not forget it :-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This may already have been suggested elsewhere or elsewhen (I
>>>>>>> thought of it years ago), but I think it'd be useful.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anyone like this idea?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /me likes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alexandre.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards- -Doug
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:39:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:18 UTC