- From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:19:52 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Message-ID: <CAOHhXmR_dqOeUR6PRU81G0hg7P+S+fDgEEZdkKuTQHhvpi0KFw@mail.gmail.com>
IMO, when speaking about DQV property :hasMetric is Ok, whilst :metric is wrong. :Metric is a class. We have to pay extra attention when it comes to DAQ, daq:hasMetric and daq:metric are both valid properties and defined as distinct. I did not know about the capitalization issue in Japanese, anyway, we can change the convention if the group thinks it is needed. Cheers, Riccardo On 15 December 2015 at 14:15, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: > 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 > > > -- > This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be > clean. > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Riccardo Albertoni Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico Magenes" Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660 e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 14:20:20 UTC