W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2012

Re: 1.3 SDMX and related materials

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:24:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4F88371F.9000305@gmail.com>
To: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
CC: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi Patrick,

On 13/04/12 14:27, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Greetings!
> Section 1.3 SDMX and related materials reads in part:

Is there a URL for that?

>> There have been a number of important results from this work: two
>> versions of a set of technical specifications - ISO:TS 17369 (SDMX) -
>> and the release of several recommendations for structuring and
>> harmonising cross-domain statistics, the SDMX Content-Oriented
>> Guidelines. All of the products are available at www.sdmx.org
>> <http://www.sdmx.org>. The standards are now being widely adopted
>> around the world for the collection, exchange, processing, and
>> dissemination of aggregate statistics by official statistical
>> organisations. The UN Statistical Commission recommended SDMX as the
>> preferred standard for statistics in 2007.
>> The SDMX specification defines a core /information model/ which is
>> reflected in concrete form in two syntaxes - SDMX-ML (an XML syntax)
>> and SDMX-EDI. The Data Cube vocabulary builds upon the core of the
>> SDMX information model.
>> A key component of the SDMX standards package are the
>> *Content-Oriented Guidelines* (COGs), a set of cross-domain concepts,
>> code lists, and categories that support interoperability and
>> comparability between datasets by providing a shared terminology
>> between SDMX implementers. RDF versions of these terms are available
>> separately for use along with the Data Cube vocabulary.


> There is an outstanding "todo" item to bring references into W3C style
> but the quoted material is ambiguous as to which version of the SDML
> specification defines the core information model that is being followed.
> The references to the COGs are also vague.
> Suggest adding explicit references both in the text and in the
> bibliography to specific versions of these documents.

Good suggestion thanks. We will improve the SDMX references before the 
next release of the working draft. I have created a working group action 
item (ACTION-63) to track this.

> Curious why the COG vocabularies, in RDF "versions" are not reported as
> normative references?

Because as far as I'm aware there are none that are normatively 

The only RDF versions of COG that I know of are the ones at:

Whilst we made every effort to ensure those were faithful encodings of 
COG 2009 they have not been formally reviewed or approved by either 
sdmx.org or this working group [*] so I don't think they can be used 
normatively in the spec.

Does you know if these are the RDF versions being referred to in the 
above quote?

Please let us know if you are satisfied with this response.


[*] I currently maintain those myself, which is why I'm cautious of 
claiming any formal official standing for them.
Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 14:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:53:36 UTC