W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-csv-wg@w3.org > June 2014

RE: Some comments on the UCR document

From: Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Davide Ceolin <d.ceolin@vu.nl>, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
CC: W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2624871D9A05174691BD59F8EFD68AE2088443D5@EXXCMPD1DAG3.cmpd1.metoffice.gov.uk>
Hi Ivan - am just going through your points from the FPWD publication to make sure we've 
got everything covered. A whole bunch of really useful editorial corrections.

Response to your points below ...

Thanks, Jeremy

> I attach the minor issues I found below.
> Cheers
> Ivan
> - Section 3.3., bullet points after example 2, "e.g. 1901.04 -
> equivalent to January, 1901": shouldn't that be April 1901?

No - really the data is "1901.04" ... I think this is trying to express the mid-point of
January. Personally I wouldn't do it this way, but that's what my scientific colleagues
chose to do!

> - In the examples (say, example 7 or 8) it is not absolutely clear
> where the beginning of the data set is; this is an artefact of the
> styling. Eg, in Example 7, is 'Post Unique reference', etc, the _first_
> row in the CSV file, or are there (is it allowed to have) empty rows
> beforehand? The answer is obviously 'yes, it is the first row' in this
> case, but that may not alwasy be 100% obvious (e.g., Example 1: how
> many empty lines are there?). I guess, CSS-wise, a thin border around
> the data, or adding row numbers, or something similar, may help in
> avoiding any ambiguity.

Good point, but I don't want to get into messing around with ReSpec ... 
and my CSS skills are non-existent. Would accept help if offered ;-) 

> - Section 3.6., first paragraph: isn't there a full stop missing after
> "Public Library of Science"?


> - Section 3.6.: isn't it correct that this use case also requires
> "CsvAsSubsetOfLargerDataset"? At least this is what the second bullet
> item seems to suggest.

Agreed & added to use case (plus x-ref from req back to use case).

> - Section 3.6.: (I am not sure it is really relevant) one of the text
> fields is actually not pure text, but a HTML snippet. What this tells
> me is that a type information making that clear may be useful (note
> that RDF has an HTML data type for such purposes). Maybe worth noting
> as a non-obvious micro syntax/format (ie, we are not only talking about
> numbers or dates)

Agreed & added a note to that effect; R-FieldMicrosyntax was already referenced.

> - I know this may be controversial: the title of section 3.7 uses the
> word 'Analyses'. According to http://www.tysto.com/uk-us-spelling-
> list.html, this is British spelling. However, the official spelling for
> W3C documents should be American English, so shouldn't that be
> Analyzes? I am a bit out of my comfort zone here because, for a
> foreigner, the intricacies of British vs. American spellings are a
> mystery sometimes, so I may be wrong on that example, but I am sure
> about the overall statement on American English spelling for W3C
> documents. (B.t.w., the title of 3.8 uses "Analyzing" but uses
> "analyses" in the text:-)

OK; being British, my understanding of American English spelling maybe even worse 
Than yours! Dictionary.com says "analyzes" exists, so I'll go with it.

That it's the wrong spelling is neither here nor there ;-)


> - Section 3.7, after the bullet items following example 13: "data
> therein contained" -> "data contained therein" (I think)

Correct again. Fixed.

> - Section 3.9, second paragraph, "saved as csv files for each line": I
> guess we should CSV here (and elsewhere) to be consistent (I have not
> checked the file for other occurence of "csv" as opposed to "CSV")

Agreed ... and fixed the other occurrences of "csv" (now reads "CSV").

> - Section 3.10, first bullet item: "Eurozone in 2007, the implying
> currency is problematic" sounds a bit strange English-wise; should the
> "the" be dropped? Also "necessary to explicit the currency of each
> column" -> "necessary to make the currency of each column explicit"

Have re-read the paragraph & written in proper English this time! Fixed.

> - Section 3.10, second bullet item: "preferrable" -> "preferable"


> - Section 3.16, first paragraph, has both NetCDF and netCDF. I am not
> sure which should be the canonical format, but we should be consistent

Looking at the website for the creators of NetCDF <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/> 
They are more or less consistent in their use of NetCDF. I've modified the document 
to be consistent with that. Fixed.

> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 21:43:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:40 UTC