Re: [Time sensitive] Re: Pre-publication steps

I went through the publication (just reading through). There is only one typo in the image. I guess daq:Category should be dqv:Category. The rest seems fine :)

Cheers,
Jer

> On 15 Dec 2015, at 07:08, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 08:34:52 UTC