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

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

From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 10:29:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQwyzmidBi3T_mCqBM1+V7qKEitfJU3gXnKKt=Nee65Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Cc: "Debattista, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Sure...

Riccardo


On 15 December 2015 at 10:01, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks Jeremy - can you update the image accordingly pls Riccardo?
>
>
> On 15/12/2015 08:33, Debattista, Jeremy wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo Albertoni
Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
Magenes"
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 09:29:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 December 2015 09:29:54 UTC