Re: Draft minutes of RDFCore telecon 20030130

Sorry I couldn't make the telecon. Cell phones don't work inside 
hotel corridors in New Orleans.

>7: Rec Docs sanity check
>
>There is editorial work to do to publish the docs as recs.
>
>ERIC HAS WRITE LOCK ON ALL THE EDITORS DRAFTS
>
>A number of editorial changes have been made or in progress of being made,
>including:
>
>   - style sheets updated to REC stylesheet
>   - big yellow warning box about status
>   - copyright updated to 2004
>   - links to errata and translations added
>   - doc status updated
>   - references updated
>
>Eric requests doc editors to verify changes to doc references.  The links
>should go to the shadow TR docs

all of which have URIs ending in 20030117 and are dated 10 Feb 
2004...   Oh well, never mind.

>, the ammended text should be checked.

.looking at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/

The references seem to work OK, (though see below) and the text reads 
OK.  Some links are broken, though:

In the Versions section (just under the Series Editor line)

The 'errata' link is broken (404 error)

In the Status section:

the internal link to the 'change log' is broken (should be 
href="#change"  not #changes)
(BTW, I noticed a similar problem in the Concepts document with this 
link, where it should be #section-Revisions)

the 'implementations' link is broken (404 error)

----

A question. I note that other documents have curtailed their change 
logs to include only changes made since the October 10  LC WDraft, as 
the boilerplate text suggests. I was not aware that this was 
appropriate editorial behavior, or I would also have done it.  If it 
is not too late I would suggest that this be done to the semantics 
document, and hereby commit to Eric my entire and absolute Editorial 
Permission to Do This, should he feel so inclined. It would be a 
simple deletion of the last sections of the change log (from the 
paragraph heading "Changes since the 5 September 2003 working 
draft.", which is line 4341 in my copy of the document, to the end.)

I think this would be an improvement, as the pages of detailed 
differences from older versions will not be of interest in the future 
to most readers and might even be confusing; and they are detailed in 
the archived copy of the 10 October document in any case.

----

A possible issue (or maybe just a question).

Currently, Vocabulary, TestCases and Primer are listed as 
non-normative references.  However, there is no distinction made in 
the common status section between these documents and the others in 
the List of Six, and if you go and look at those documents, they seem 
to be W3C Recommendations just like all the others, and their 
introduction has the same boilerplate about possible errata being 
normative, the English version being the only normative one, and so 
on.  This reads oddly to me. At the very least it seems that we owe 
the world an explanation, so they know that this isn't just an 
editing bug in the references text.

Hmm, maybe it IS just a bug in the references text.... Is there 
really any good reason why these should not be all considered 
normative? Certainly TestCases and Vocabulary seem just as, er, 
seriously authoritative as the others.  I am left with the indelible 
impression, in fact, that if we had to choose one document that is 
Most Normative, it would be TestCases.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes