Re: Additional review and telecon (Tuesday) for Best Practices

On 12/13/2013 09:02 PM, Bernadette Hyland wrote:
> Hi,
> The Best Practices document has feedback incorporated & is available for
> review.[1]  Please send comments to the mailing list and the editors
> will continue responding.[2]
>
> Thank you.
>
> On behalf of the GLD best practice editors,
>
> Bernadette, Boris & Ghislain
> W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/bp/index.html
> [2] public-gld-comments@w3.org <mailto:public-gld-comments@w3.org>


Hi Bernadette, thank you for the updates.

Ready for some more last last last minute comments? :D

Some small editorial stuff:

* I think there is an encoding issue with the document e.g., 
"CSARVENón-Capadisli"

* http://http:// -> http://

* There are several misplaced </p>s. It shouldn't wrap a big block of 
things. I don't know if this is something ReSpec is forcing you to do, 
but I'd remove for example </p> from line 222. It should come after 
"variety of syntaxes including:". See also validator.w3.org

* ". Others include" -> "Others include"

* In 19. Machine Access to Data section, you might want to consider 
changing the URL http://labs.mondeca.com/sparqlEndpointsStatus/ to its 
new location: http://sparqles.okfn.org/

* Missing <ul> after "following good practice in mind:"

* The punctuation in acknowledgements is inconsistent. I think the 
intention was "Individuals (Affiliations)"? [If you don't mind, I'd like 
to use the "DERI, INSIGHT Centre, Ireland" affiliation].


In 10. URI Construction, I still feel it would be appropriate and 
relevant to mention http://csarven.ca/linked-sdmx-data#uri-patterns as 
it compliments the RDF Data Cube vocabulary (QB). It provides a pattern 
for most (if not all) of the things of significance that's modeled with QB.

In 11. URI Policy for Persistence section, would it make sense to 
mention w3id.org?

In 13. Standard Vocabularies section lead last paragraph (line 610) 
talks about QB. This paragraph is a bit confusing. It sounds as if the 
document it cites (i.e., linked-statistical-data-analysis) made the 
proposal for QB. Lastly, "and presents a design and implementation 
approach using the Data Cube Vocabulary" is probably inappropriate here 
and should be left out.

In 18. Publishing Data for Access and Reuse section talks about the 
5-star scheme for deploying LOD. The "chart" with the stars at the end 
of that section emphasizes "vocabularies". It seems as if the 5-star 
scheme is adapted for consuming and publishing vocabularies in a 
LD-friendly way. Was this intended for this section?

In 21. Announce to the Public, would it make sense to mention 
http://datahub.io/ ? After all, it is the primary location where the 
datasets are acquired for the LOD Cloud. Along with that, efforts like 
the LOD cache help tremendously for these datasets to be easily 
discovered. How to Find Existing Vocabularies under section 13. Standard 
Vocabularies brings it up as far as vocabularies are concerned. Any way, 
I still feel that announcing a dataset at a place like the Data Hub is 
important enough that it should be mentioned somewhere here.

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 16:22:32 UTC