W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [publishing-statistical-data] W3C Data Cube Last Call

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 09:04:44 +0100
Message-ID: <515E859C.1050406@gmail.com>
To: Guillaume Duffes <guillaume.duffes@gmail.com>
CC: public-gld-comments@w3.org, Cotton Franck <franck.cotton@insee.fr>
Dear Guillaume,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments on the Data Cube last call.

We will give a formal response to the various issues you raise in due 
course.

In the meantime I wonder if I could ask a clarifying question.

> _*6.4*_ : “ /In a data set with multiple observations
> //*[measures ??]*//**//then we add an additional dimension whose value
> indicates the measure. This is appropriate for applications where the
> measures are separate aggregate statistics“/→ I do not completely agree
> with that.
>
> First, I guess you meant multiple measures instead of observations.
>
> The above-mentioned “ /additional dimension/ “, that is the measure
> dimension is defined in SDMX 2.1 as “/ is a special type of dimension
> which defines multiple measures in a data structure definition. [..].
> Note that it is necessary that these representations are compliant (the
> same or derived from) with that of the primary measure.” /The primary
> measure which represents the value of the phenomenon to be measured via
> a reference to a concept, is mandatory and can take its semantic from
> any concept, although it is provided as a fixed identifier (OBS_VALUE).
>
> The SDMX MeasureDimension is above all a dimension, admittedly of a
> particular type, whereas it seems to me that the RDF Data Cube
> MeasureDimension, declared as a qb:MeasureType is primarily a measure.
> In my mind it is exemplified by the fact that the qb:MeasureType
> component is a dimension property with an implicit code list whereas
> SDMX requires a reference to an explicit ConceptScheme whether its
> representation be made explicit or not. I think it would be worth
> mentioning this slight difference.

I do agree that qb:MeasureType is unusual in this respect of having an 
implicit code list, despite being a qb:DimensionProperty.

This is called out in section 6.5.2 [1] third paragraph.

Is that explanatory paragraph sufficient if we clarify that this notion 
of an implicit code list for qb:MeasureType is a small divergence from 
SDMX?

Thanks,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-data-cube-20130312/#dsd-mm-dim
Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 08:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 5 April 2013 08:05:17 UTC