Resolve "Editor's notes"

[afs]

There are Editor's Notes (class="ednote") in the following places:

• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#sotd
  Determine how to reference 1.2 test cases.
• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#conformance
  The conformance levels described above are tentative, and still the subject of group discussion. An alternative to conformance levels, "profiles", may be adopted instead, abandoned, or described in another specification.
• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#server-considerations
  Mention of "Unstar" document
• https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#acknowledgments-for-rdf-1-2
  Recognize members of the Task Force? Not an easy to find list of contributors.

[afs]

@pchampin

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#server-considerations

has an editors note:

Eliminate triple terms by using an algorithm such as Unstar (downgrading from version "1.2" to "1.2-basic" or to "1.1").

Editor's note
Fix this when such an algorithmm is defined.

I think we need to have zapped all editors notes before CR.

If publishing is switched on for rdf-interop, we can link to that as the algorithm and Concepts can go to CR.

w3c/rdf-star-wg#55

[pchampin]

@pchampin

https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#server-considerations

has an editors note:

Eliminate triple terms by using an algorithm such as Unstar (downgrading from version "1.2" to "1.2-basic" or to "1.1").
Editor's note
Fix this when such an algorithmm is defined.

I think we need to have zapped all editors notes before CR.

If publishing is switched on for rdf-interop, we can link to that as the algorithm and Concepts can go to CR.

w3c/rdf-star-wg#55

the easiest solution IMO is to publish rdf-interop as a draft note (we need a WG decision to do that, but that should not be too controversial -- this is just a draft). Then we can reference to it (this a non-normative reference).