Update References to SWEET in eo-qb document

[lewismc]

Previously I wrote to the mailing list as follows

Good Afternoon SDW,
I wanted to bring to your attention a suggested edit to the above document regarding use of and reference to the SWEET Ontology Suite. Initially however I am very pleased to see mention and use of SWEET in this document. I did write to the SDW WG some time ago mentioning why I thought that SWEET should be considered as one of the important Semantic Web vocabulary resources some time ago but was more or less shot down. I am glad to see that the community has now changed its stance which has ultimately resulted in SWEET being included in the above document.
We open sourced SWEET quite some time ago and took it out of NASA JPL and into governance over at the ESIP Federation where it now lives and t developed primarily by members of the ESIP Semantic Technologies Committee.
The IRI http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov is not maintained, does not resolve and is non-functional.
The new IRI, minted and supported by ESIP is http://sweetontology.net
More documentation on our rationale for the IRI scheme can be found at the project wiki https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet/wiki/SWEET-IRI-Patterns-for-Ontologies-and-Their-Terms
Note SWEET is available as linked data through the ESIP Community Ontology Repository which is why everything resolved.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could update the reference and usage to the most recent. If you want me to submit a pull request for this please let me know.
Thank you
Lewis

I would like to update the document so I will submit a PR to do that.

[chris-little]

I am happy for this Pull Request correction to update the SWEET URL.
@lvdbrink @tidoust Does this informative change need some officially endorsed Corrigendum in the W3C document?

[lvdbrink]

The eo-qb document is a W3C Note so all we need is a group resolution to publish a corrigendum. (@tidoust, correct me if I'm wrong).

[lvdbrink]

I merged PR #1104, but we still have to see if we can get some people active to work on the other open issues related to eo-qb - or decide to publish a corrigendum with just this change. Pending that, I'll leave this issue open for now.