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

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

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:15:54 +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: <5670128A.8020506@w3.org>
Thank you, Riccardo, I'll do final processing later today.

Just a final check, :hasMerit is correct and :merit is incorrect? (I 
prefer the has version as there is clearly a class of :Merit and I don't 
like the convention of lower case properties leading to upper case 
classes - not only is it confusing for everyone, it doesn't work in 
languages like Japanese where there is no concept of letter case.

Phil.

On 15/12/2015 12:55, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> Hi Phil and Jeremy,
> I have updated the diagram,  added dqv:hasQualityMeasure in the ttl and
> html, and   generated a new diff and published snapshot.
>
> You find the updated versions on github.
>
>
> On 15 December 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.
>>
>
> It is ok thanks a lot for this, I have updated the diagram accordingly.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> perfect!
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> many thanks for this.
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Added both in ttl and html.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Let me know if you see other issues.
>
> Thanks again,
> Riccardo
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 13:15:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 December 2015 13:15:47 UTC