Re: Some comments on the UCR document

Hey Jeremy,

thanks. For the example styling, I have looked at the document again and, after all, let us not touch it. It is consistent throughout the document, after a while one gets the meaning right.

As for the British spelling: being European, I learned British spelling at school when, long time ago, they made some attempts to teach me the language:-) And I still have the instinct of spelling favour and colour and not favor or color. But then, with the usage of American all around, I am officially messed up and sometimes I do not know any more which is which:-) 

Thanks!

Ivan



On 03 Jun 2014, at 17:43 , Tandy, Jeremy <jeremy.tandy@metoffice.gov.uk> wrote:

> Hi Ivan - am just going through your points from the FPWD publication to make sure we've 
> got everything covered. A whole bunch of really useful editorial corrections.
> 
> Response to your points below ...
> 
> Thanks, Jeremy
> 
>> 
>> I attach the minor issues I found below.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> - Section 3.3., bullet points after example 2, "e.g. 1901.04 -
>> equivalent to January, 1901": shouldn't that be April 1901?
>> 
> 
> No - really the data is "1901.04" ... I think this is trying to express the mid-point of
> January. Personally I wouldn't do it this way, but that's what my scientific colleagues
> chose to do!
> 
>> - In the examples (say, example 7 or 8) it is not absolutely clear
>> where the beginning of the data set is; this is an artefact of the
>> styling. Eg, in Example 7, is 'Post Unique reference', etc, the _first_
>> row in the CSV file, or are there (is it allowed to have) empty rows
>> beforehand? The answer is obviously 'yes, it is the first row' in this
>> case, but that may not alwasy be 100% obvious (e.g., Example 1: how
>> many empty lines are there?). I guess, CSS-wise, a thin border around
>> the data, or adding row numbers, or something similar, may help in
>> avoiding any ambiguity.
> 
> Good point, but I don't want to get into messing around with ReSpec ... 
> and my CSS skills are non-existent. Would accept help if offered ;-) 
> 
>> 
>> - Section 3.6., first paragraph: isn't there a full stop missing after
>> "Public Library of Science"?
>> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>> - Section 3.6.: isn't it correct that this use case also requires
>> "CsvAsSubsetOfLargerDataset"? At least this is what the second bullet
>> item seems to suggest.
>> 
> 
> Agreed & added to use case (plus x-ref from req back to use case).
> 
>> - Section 3.6.: (I am not sure it is really relevant) one of the text
>> fields is actually not pure text, but a HTML snippet. What this tells
>> me is that a type information making that clear may be useful (note
>> that RDF has an HTML data type for such purposes). Maybe worth noting
>> as a non-obvious micro syntax/format (ie, we are not only talking about
>> numbers or dates)
>> 
> 
> Agreed & added a note to that effect; R-FieldMicrosyntax was already referenced.
> 
>> - I know this may be controversial: the title of section 3.7 uses the
>> word 'Analyses'. According to http://www.tysto.com/uk-us-spelling-
>> list.html, this is British spelling. However, the official spelling for
>> W3C documents should be American English, so shouldn't that be
>> Analyzes? I am a bit out of my comfort zone here because, for a
>> foreigner, the intricacies of British vs. American spellings are a
>> mystery sometimes, so I may be wrong on that example, but I am sure
>> about the overall statement on American English spelling for W3C
>> documents. (B.t.w., the title of 3.8 uses "Analyzing" but uses
>> "analyses" in the text:-)
>> 
> 
> OK; being British, my understanding of American English spelling maybe even worse 
> Than yours! Dictionary.com says "analyzes" exists, so I'll go with it.
> 
> That it's the wrong spelling is neither here nor there ;-)
> 
> "Fixed"!
> 
>> - Section 3.7, after the bullet items following example 13: "data
>> therein contained" -> "data contained therein" (I think)
>> 
> 
> Correct again. Fixed.
> 
>> - Section 3.9, second paragraph, "saved as csv files for each line": I
>> guess we should CSV here (and elsewhere) to be consistent (I have not
>> checked the file for other occurence of "csv" as opposed to "CSV")
>> 
> 
> Agreed ... and fixed the other occurrences of "csv" (now reads "CSV").
> 
>> - Section 3.10, first bullet item: "Eurozone in 2007, the implying
>> currency is problematic" sounds a bit strange English-wise; should the
>> "the" be dropped? Also "necessary to explicit the currency of each
>> column" -> "necessary to make the currency of each column explicit"
>> 
> 
> Have re-read the paragraph & written in proper English this time! Fixed.
> 
>> - Section 3.10, second bullet item: "preferrable" -> "preferable"
>> 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
>> - Section 3.16, first paragraph, has both NetCDF and netCDF. I am not
>> sure which should be the canonical format, but we should be consistent
>> 
> 
> Looking at the website for the creators of NetCDF <http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/> 
> They are more or less consistent in their use of NetCDF. I've modified the document 
> to be consistent with that. Fixed.
> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me