- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:57:21 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Arjohn Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna.biz>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:57:22 -0400, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> wrote: > We can't change the recommendation as such, afaik. But we can record > things in an Errata (see > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata#rdf-syntax-grammar) such that > future WGs could pick up these issues and publish new WDs based on them. > > I'm not sure how much structure we have around review of errata text. > Basically the problem falls back on the W3C Team, when there's no WG in > place. In this case, we have a SW Coordination Group who meet weekly, > I suggest the following plan of action: > > - someone (perhaps Dave, as the relevant spec Editor) draft an Errata > section on this problem, citing the www-rdf-comments thread. > - I'll raise this within SWCG, where we'll apply some basic sanity > checks, then update /2001/sw/RDFCore/errata > > http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Errata has some style guidelines for > errata. > > Dave, how's that sound? Sounds OK to me, but I'm the former editor with no w3c-process authority to make errata on these RECs (and I've seen things on other RDF Core RECs too that need errata, but I've not been collecting them) Maybe these should be recorded with a status something like Potential Errata recorded by W3C Team but not reviewed by a WG as there is at present no WG chartered to maintain these documents. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 08:57:25 UTC