This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Compose a W3C Note on the EPR Reference Scheme
Initial draft of the EPR Note for discussion at the Orlando F2F: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Jan/0087.html
Initial draft of the SML EPR Reference Scheme Note is attached in the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0019.html
Comments by Ginny on initial draft of the SML EPR Reference Scheme Note are attached to this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0072.html
Revised draft of the SML EPR Reference Scheme Note, based on Ginny's comments, is attached this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0076.html
Follow-up comments by Ginny are contained in the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0078.html
Clean-up draft based on Ginny's last comments; also containing minor edits, is attached to the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Mar/0081.html
New draft based on comments received at the Redwood City F2F: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0057.html
Please ignore draft attached to Comment #7. The replacement draft is attached to the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0063.html
Created attachment 548 [details] comments on latest proposal my comments on the latest epr note draft
Version in response to Comment #9 can be found attached to the following email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Apr/0139.html
Email with latest draft attached, prepared for discussion at Oct 27 - 29 F2F: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0012.html
(In reply to comment #11) > Email with latest draft attached, prepared for discussion at Oct 27 - 29 F2F: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0012.html > PDF version at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0016.html
Note has been converted to HTML and put under version control in CVS. See http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2007/xml/sml/epr-note.html.
Created attachment 642 [details] Len's proposed edits to the Note on EPR-based ref schemes Open in word 2007
Created attachment 643 [details] Len's proposed edits to the Note on EPR-based ref schemes Open with a PDF reader
I've attached my proposed changes to the EPR note. There are quite a few, but most are style changes. Change tracking is on in the Word doc, so insertions and deletions are visible. Deletions are marked in red with a strike-through line. Insertions are double-underlined. Where I have replaced text, the insertion always follows the deletion and there is an explanatory comment attached to the insertion.
Created attachment 648 [details] Kirk's responses to Len's edits (Word doc.) Corrections made in response to Len's comments. Some discussion points remain.
Created attachment 649 [details] Kirk's Responses to Len's Comments (PDF format)
Created attachment 654 [details] Second version of revisions (Word doc) Accepted changes from 648 (comment #17) and applied clean-up changes plus changes as discussed on telecon of 2009-03-02. Also, this draft uses IRIs rather than URIs in conjunction with the WS-Addressing spec. (If this useage is unacceptable, it can be backed-out easily.)
Created attachment 655 [details] Second version of revisions (PDF format) PDF version corresponding to attachment 654 [details] / comment #19.
Created attachment 665 [details] comments on Kirk's draft, docx comments on Kirk's draft, docx
Created attachment 666 [details] comments on Kirk's draft, pdf comments on Kirk's draft, pdf
Notes on John's Comments. JA2: There is also a place where reference to RFC 3986 is bolded rather italicized as well. JA3: I would suggest dropping the "(in theory)". I think the "may be possible to define" is sufficient to allow the "in theory" case. JA4: "Implementation-defined" should be dropped.
Created attachment 671 [details] Revisions in response to John's comments 665 (DOC version) Revisions in response to John's comments (attachment 665 [details]). Only two passages were significant changed. Please read for FINAL review.
Created attachment 672 [details] Revisions in response to John's comments 666 (PDF version) Revisions in response to John's comments (attachment 666 [details] - PDF version). Only two passages were significantly changed. Please read for FINAL review.
Created attachment 677 [details] Attachment 671 [details] with consistent format for textual references Clean-ups textual references from 671, establishes a consistent format for references.
Created attachment 678 [details] Attachment 672 [details] with consistent format for textual references Cleans-up textual references for 672; applies consistent formating to references.
We'll probably want to adjust the References text ala the AC comments on the Rec track documents (XML 4th edition being the "sore point"). Although I don't remember much in the way of reviews on Notes, there's no point in poking organizations in the eye either. Something along the lines of "the references are consistent with those used in the development of the SML and SMLIF specs" at the top, coupled with "floor=SML Rec track references, ceiling=latest" should mollify folks based on what we've seen to date.
Created attachment 689 [details] Checked version of EPR Note (HTML) Links to the SML and SML-IF specs are not guaranteed to work in this version until these specs are published.
Completed Checking of EPR Note: PubRules, CSS-Validator, HTML Checker, Link Checker. Most recent version attached to But and available at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/epr-note.html?rev=1.12
Review of document: - [SML] links do not work. - [address] link in paragraph *after* 2.1.3.c does not work. - In the same paragraph, I suggest a link to "target-complete identifier" definition. - "thesame" - in last paragraph in section 2 - "ot" section 4.2, first paragraph
Created attachment 694 [details] Corrections for comment #31 Corrections to Ginny's comments in Comment #31.
Created attachment 697 [details] Links to SML and SML-IF Recommendations Updated all hyperlinks to SML and SML-IF to the 20090512 Recommendation versions.
Running the link checker (http://validator.w3.org/checklink) over revision 1.14 reveals many broken links, particularly links to the SML and SML-IF recommendations. Many of the intra-doc fragment ids are broken as well. In the References section: - The [SML] and [SML-if] entries have '25 November 2008' as the date of publication - [RFC 3987] could use a comma and space after the title - [WS-Man] -- There is a problem with the markup around the title - [WS-T] and [WSDM] -- Replace period after title with a comma - [XML] contains what looks like a placeholder '[XXXSMLXXX]'; also, is the explanatory text re editions necessary here? Suggest bumping up the date on the Note and adjusting the Note URIs to match. I changed the XLink Note to '1 June 2006'. The hover-to-reveal behavior of the 'Back to Contents' links is broken.
Created attachment 704 [details] Addresses Len's Comment #34 All issues identified by Len in Comment #34 are addressed.
Per the telecon of June 1, the working group has decided it has finished its work on this Note. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2009Jun/att-0003/20090601-sml-minutes.html#item04 Per the telecon of June 8, I am closing out this bug.