W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > December 2015

[Time sensitive] Re: Pre-publication steps

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:08:57 +0000
To: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Message-ID: <566FAE79.8020900@w3.org>
Thanks again, Riccardo,

I've been through the document this morning and made some changes that I 
need you to check over please.

First of all, I found references to the property metric and hasMetric. 
To make things consistent I have changed all instances of dqv:metric to 
dqv:hasMetric. If this is correct, all well and good. If it should be 
dqv:metric, they'll all need changing back again.

I reflected this change in the ttl file too - which I have uploaded to 
w3.org/ns so the namespace works. OK? I've removed the relevant note 
from the doc as a result.

All sections must have ids!

Again for consistency, I've made the id for each of the sections that 
define a term into dqv:{term} rather than class:{term} etc. And updated 
internal links accordingly.

I can't find a definition for dqv:hasQualityMeasure - that seems to be 
missing. Can you either add that to the doc and the ttl file please or 
remove it where it is mentioned in both?

I think that's all.

Sorry to push but the doc needs to be ready for publication during 
tomorrow, Wednesday, so time is very limited.

Cheers

Phil.


On 14/12/2015 21:18, Phil Archer wrote:
> Thanks Riccardo, that's v helpful. I'll take it from here - PubRules
> does throw up some very odd requirements that I've become used to over
> the years ;-)
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
> On 14/12/2015 20:08, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
>> Hi Phil,
>> Thanks for the instructions,
>> I think DQV is almost ready with the Pre-publication steps.
>> You can find the html generated by ReSpec at
>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/WD-vocab-dqv-20151214/Overview.html
>>
>>
>> Still some issues are found by PubRules,
>> but sincerely I am not sure  how to fix them,
>> any suggestion?
>>
>>   if you need more details on the steps we did you can see below.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Riccardo
>>
>> On 11 December 2015 at 18:10, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Riccardo, Eric, Newton,
>>>
>>> I think it's the three of you who are doing most work to prepare the
>>> docs
>>> for publication (with luck, Eric, we can vote next week to publish
>>> the DUV
>>> immediately after Christmas ;-) )
>>>
>>> Before publication there are a number of steps that need to be
>>> followed. I
>>> am happy to take on some of this as your team contact, however, I
>>> will be
>>> travelling Monday-Tuesday and so time is tight. Our webmaster is
>>> expecting
>>> a raft of publications on Thursday and so we need to be prepared.
>>>
>>> The order of these steps is not important but here's a list:
>>>
>>> 1. Spelling needs to be checked. Please run the text through a spell
>>> checker set to US English (warning- Europeans write 'organisation,'
>>> Americans write 'organization' etc.)
>>>
>> Done
>>
>>
>>> 2. Weird thing about W3C, we give the word Web a capital W (when it
>>> refers
>>> to the WWW).
>>>
>> Done
>>
>> 3. HTML must be valid. The validator is at https://validator.w3.org.
>>>
>>> Warnings are OK, actual errors are not. The most common errors are
>>> unclosed elements, or extra closing elements that don't match an opening
>>> one etc. As discussed, the <section> elements are what drives the ToC
>>> and
>>> numbering.
>>>
>>> It is valid,
>> https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdwbp%2Fvocab-dqg.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, all links must resolve, so use the link checker too
>>> http://validator.w3.org/checklink
>>>
>>> It has a habit of reporting some URLs as unavailable but when you try
>>> them
>>> in the browser, they're fine. If this happens it's because the check
>>> sends
>>> an HTTP HEAD request, not a GET - and some servers are set up not to
>>> respond to HEAD requests.
>>>
>>
>> I have got rid of most of the  invalid links,
>> we have still few  links which are marked as broken,
>> I would not consider those links as  problematic:
>> They  are "broken URI fragments" which  are either  links to classes/
>> properties we are still in progress in DQV (for which we use   <a
>> href="#">... </a> ), or pointers to a class or propriety in a RDF file
>> (e.g., http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty).
>> If you need more detail, you can take a look at
>> https://validator.w3.org/checklink?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fdwbp%2Fvocab-dqg.html&hide_type=all&depth=&check=Check
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 4. Note that ReSpec does a lot of the work for you - and it does do a
>>> *lot* of work. For example, it writes in ids for every section and every
>>> heading that doesn't already have one. It also adds in RDFa markup
>>> and Web
>>> ARIA info. That's why the published docs have far more markup than
>>> you put
>>> in. If you copy and paste *from* a published doc, it will have all
>>> that in
>>> there and it won't do any harm, but it may surprise you to see it :-)
>>>
>>> 5. Thanks for including the change logs - they're important.
>>>
>>> I have added  the changes history also under the section "Changes:"
>>> in the
>> document header.
>>
>>
>>> 6. The ReSpec config is important of course. This is what writes in all
>>> the top matter. If you look at the source code of view-source:
>>> http://w3c.github.io/sdw/UseCases/SDWUseCasesAndRequirements.html you'll
>>> see all the config options, including the section on 'otherLinks'.
>>> That's
>>> where you can put the links to the GH repo, the Diff etc.
>>>
>>> Sorry but I am not adding GH repo. After publishing the  DQV FPWD, we
>>> had
>> at least a commenter complaining  that he could not raise issues on
>> github.. So we decided to remove the GH repo to avoid to   cause
>> confusion
>> to people who wanted raise issue.
>>
>>
>>> 7. The diff! ReSpec even does that for you. Click the reSpec icon on the
>>> top right of the doc and choose to save. You'll see various options,
>>> one of
>>> which is to save the diff - and voila - you have a diff marked doc
>>> you can
>>> save. It refers to the URL you defined as the previous version.
>>>
>>
>> I have added the diff link.
>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/diffs/dqvdiff-20151214.html
>>   Not sure how understandable it is but anyway we have it :)
>> The dump of diff is in the subdirectory diffs/ .
>>
>>
>>> Then if you really want to finish the job there is our PubRules checker
>>> https://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules This checks for many things, most of
>>> which are handled by ReSpec, but not all. Documents that don't pass
>>> PubRules won't be published.
>>>
>>> You can do all this. The only thing you can't do is to install the
>>> documents on w3.org which I will do of course. The more of this you're
>>> able to do, the more chance there is of us meeting the deadline.
>>>
>>> The documents need to be installed and PubRules on Wednesday. And I need
>>> to send a publication request to the webmaster.
>>>
>>>
>> You can find the html generated by ReSpec at
>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/publishing-snapshots/WD-vocab-dqv-20151214/Overview.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'll do my best to help between now and then of course. I'll be in a
>>> 2 day
>>> project meeting and so will have some ability to tune out from time
>>> to time.
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>>
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be
>>> clean.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 06:08:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 December 2015 06:08:53 UTC