Replace published OWL-Time with version that includes IANA section

[dr-shorthair]

The editors-draft of OWL-Time which is available at https://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/ adds a section on IANA Considerations https://w3c.github.io/sdw/time/#iana-links . This was added back in September https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/1138 . The is an 'erratum' - it changes nothing, merely adding a section that re-describes material that was already present in the document in the form required by IANA.

Can we arrange to have this published as a replacement for the current Rec https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/

[chris-little]

I agree with this.

[tguild]

I'll need to look into how to handle this given SDWWG is no more and maintenance handed to SDWIG

It would probably be wise to request review on public-sdwig@w3.org

https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#errata

[tguild]

I spoke with @plehegar (with his Project Management Lead hat on) about the various options available for this document (as it made it to the final REC stage) and manner of changes is the third one down:

https://w3c.github.io/transitions/nextstep.html?shortname=owl-time

"Publish a Candidate Recommendation with substantive changes (but no new features)"

https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions?profile=CR&cr=rec-amended.

The Maintainer Contact @dr-shorthair needs to create a transition request. Simon, you and I can share the Document Contact lead and happy to help stage the document for publication.

[dr-shorthair]

That is a lot of instructions on https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions?profile=CR&cr=rec-amended What is the actual next step?

[tguild]

@dr-shorthair next step is for you to send a transition request, the publicly archived list linked has examples. Cite this issue thread and please cc me and/or public-sdwig

After Director approves, not expecting a meeting necessary, I’ll help get it ready for publication.

[dr-shorthair]

Hmm. The CR-update template requires the following information, which I'm not sure I can supply:

Link to group's decision to request transition

Link to previous Candidate Recommendation transition request

No real challenges with the rest of the headings.

I'd also like to clarify: we are not requesting an update to a CR, but to a Rec. So is this the correct form?

[tguild]

Link to this issue thread. There is no longer a Working Group tied to this spec and it is in maintenance mode. The requirements in the earlier resource even says individuals but apparently the template doesn't handle this edge case.

Previous CR also seems like an edge case issue in the template. Since this is a 'step back' (don't worry about the semantics) in the W3C REC track we find and can provide the request to go to REC or even the earlier CR or PR.

A quick search turned up https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Aug/0006.html and together with providing link to this thread should point out the template issue for this scenario.

[tguild]

@plehegar might have different advice but I think my workaround is sufficient for this edge case.

[dr-shorthair]

Note that this version also addresses issues #1014 , #1114 , #1161

[swickr]

When we closed the Spatial Data on the Web Working Group at the expiration of its charter and chartered the Spatial Data on the Web Interest Group we included in the charter of the latter group the authorization to maintain the owl-time Recommendation.

Thus this request to republish as a maintenance update of the Recommendation should appropriately come on behalf of the SDW IG and ideally there will be a documented decision of the IG to request republication.

The IG charter says "a call for consensus will be issued for all resolutions". The result of that CfC may then be cited in the publication transition request.

If there has not yet been a Call for Consensus, I urge that one be issued.

[dr-shorthair]

SDW-IG chairs: @lvdbrink @6a6d74 could you trigger a CfC?

[tguild]

@swickr thanks for the clarification, when @plehegar and I chatted on irc we figured editor request would suffice since the group was no more but didn't consult IG charter.

plh: note that the transition requirements doesn't say "group", it says "individuals" so we don't care if it's an IG or John. it's outside a WG in any case

[plehegar]

sorry for the misleading.

[tguild]

No harm other than minor delay and I contributed to the confusion in this exception to norm/edge case. It's better to get it right

[dr-shorthair]

Doc issues reported by @tguild - recurring markup error with your use of dd/dt without being children of a dl

[dr-shorthair]

... fixed in https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/1172

[dr-shorthair]

OWL-Time got reset to CR waaay back in 2020, when we added the IANA Considerations section. https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/ It is now waaaaaaaaaay past time to move it on to Rec again. I believe this requires another CfC from the IG. Could we get this done @lvdbrink @jabhay @6a6d74 ??

[lvdbrink]

We are still waiting for a new W3C team contact (having one would really help us out in figuring out this process). But pending that, we could at least do a CfC, yes.

@dr-shorthair could you briefly list/describe the changes to the doc and them we can stick that in a CfC for the group?

[dr-shorthair]

Two changes:

1. New Section 6 - IANA Considerations, to support the registration of link relations in https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml
2. Three additional time-unit individuals for Decade, Century and Millenium

[dr-shorthair]

3. Improvements to textual definitions of before and after