-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add TR/2024/protocol-20240512 #651
Conversation
@ W3C Team : The copyright line in this PR adheres to the Community Group Report Requirements. So, the following statement, which appears in the Editor's Draft, has been removed:
@ianbjacobs @rigow, if the above statement is deemed acceptable for inclusion in the CG-DRAFT (this PR), please inform us (CG) so that it can be added to this PR. @ Solid CG :
The purpose of this PR is to publish "This version" and "Latest published version," both based on the latest editor's draft: https://solidproject.org/ED/protocol. All other types of change requests should go through the editor's draft instead of this PR and may potentially be incorporated into a separate version. |
@csarven, thank you for working on this. I will try to get back to you quickly regarding your copyright question. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Version 0.11.0. Publishes:
I just noticed that this document doesn't clearly communicate it's version 0.11 0
@rigow and I chatted. First a question: what does "code snippets" refer to? I looked at the spec and the only thing that looked like a code snippet was one example in section 5.3.1. Regarding copyright here is our guidance:
I hope that will work, Ian |
Hi. Noticed one of the acknowledged persons have their name in Telugu (I think - దామోదర) and not in English (the language of the document): Is this intentional? |
@coolharsh55 Yes, it is intentional. Source markup is If you or others prefer their name to use a specific lang tag, please let me know or PR against the editor's draft. |
efe36aa
to
2cc2729
Compare
In Solid Protocol ED, I've introduced a Same goes for:
If that's adequate (for you), let me know, they can make their way into their respective CG-DRAFT PRs. |
Thanks @ianbjacobs @rigow . Yes, in this particular case, the code in applying an N3 patch example. I'd like to note that while the code in this particular example is valid, can be processed and executed, it relies on particular "example" data that is essentially unlikely to occur in the wild with the potential case of data/scripts part of a Test Suite (QA). Anyone wishing to not get tangled up with licensing in their test software, i.e., if W3C Software license is not preferable and CC0 is, could change the terms in the example code. IANAL, but even in the case where the specification may be interpreted as "software", the example code possibly being under the CC0 license doesn't offer anything besides the W3C Software license (as per the Solid CG charter: https://www.w3.org/community/solid/charter/#license ). Thus far we had no need to separate the example code from specifications into separate files, so I do not see an incentive at the moment. If such need arises, we can do that. My suggestion to the Solid CG:
(And do the same for the other specifications proposed as CG-DRAFT.) I believe this is still compatible with the Solid CG charter but 1) IANAL, 2) we already had long discussions on this topic when working on the charter, and 3) at the end of the day it needs to be acceptable by W3C if we want to publish a W3C CG-DRAFT report. But I understand that some individuals may have a different perspective or preference, so I'm all ears as to what the CG wants here. |
This works, thanks! I would consider calling it "Semantic Version" since this name is already broadly recognized. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe it is worthwhile to update the spec now to reflect the upstream changes to HTTP specs. I have also revisited #621 and to verify that the removal of the #server-put-patch-uri-assignment does indeed not affect conformance. I believe this is good to go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
2cc2729
to
6936b8b
Compare
SELECT ?s ?p ?o
FROM <http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller?command=serialize&format=rdfa&output_format=turtle&url=https:%2F%2Fsolidproject.org%2FTR%2Fprotocol&raw>
WHERE {
?s ?p ?o .
} |
Add Solid Protocol, Version 0.11.0. Publishes:
"This version" is a request to be published as a CG-DRAFT report of the Solid CG.
The
#changelog
section indicates changes since TR/2022/protocol-20221231.Preview | Diff