Re: [Time sensitive] property names (was: Pre-publication steps)

Agh!

I've *just* finished getting the doc installed and ready at 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-vocab-dqv-20151217/

If you, as editor, want to stop the publishing process - and I can see 
that you have good grounds for doing so, Antoine, then so be it - at 
this stage it can still be deleted.

And I could add a note/issue at this stage too, but no more than that 
since the WG approved the doc for publication in last week's call.

Please advise.

I'm about to go offline as I am about to head for an airport, but will 
be at home tomorrow and can act accordingly.

Cheers

Phil.

On 15/12/2015 16:21, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks for the hard work on the final version. I'm going to try and help
> for the deadline...
>
> As for the naming I'm partly guilty last week after Phil gave the turtle
> file, I did some changes turning some dqv:hasMetric into dqv:metric. And
> I may have failed getting them all (though I can't find a wrong
> dqv:hasMetric in my last version)
> The reason for this was to keep consistency with the property we inherit
> from daQ. daq:metric leads to daq:Metric. And indeed there is a
> daq:hasMetric that is quite different and that we have not re-used
> directly (we instead created an inverse property, which is
> dqv:hasDimension)
>
> Now if we have dqv:hasMetric equivalent to daq:metric this could be also
> confusing, has we're not following the daQ naming convention (and we use
> a 'local name' that is already in daQ but with different semantics!).
>
> This being said I understand Phil's point about the property convention:
> I also prefer the convension :hasX for a property and :X for class.
>
> The problem is that daQ inherits their convention from the W3C DataCube
> vocabulary, and that we also still have some references to
> property/classes that follow the :x/:X pattern, such as
> qb:dataSet/qb:Dataset.
>
> Is there any W3C best practice we could refer to to make one choice or
> the other? Something like 'use :hasX unless your property is equivalent
> to an already named ex:x' would be lovely, but I guess it doesn't exist.
>
> And that's the DUV stance on this? At least we could have homogeneity
> within the group.
>
> A final comment: I don't think we need to make a final call for the WDs
> to be published on Thursday, but I feel at least we should register an
> issue about it if we don't have a decision everyone is ok with.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 12/15/15 3:19 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:> 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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>
>>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2015 16:45:04 UTC