RE: QB Vocab GLD focus [ was RE: Feedback on Ingredients for High Quality Linked Data section of Linked Data Cookbook]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your answer to a possible QB session on 17/5 and having XBRL as a
possible use case for QB (as also discussed on the GLD public mailing list):

> My plan with the exist QB issues is to work through them, proposing a
> possible resolution to each (some of which may be "do nothing in this
round
> of standardization"). Once we have some proposals and initial on-list
> discussion will be a good time for dedicated time in a telecon.
Understood.
 
> I wasn't aware of any plan to have a "first QB telecon" on the 17th.
> Seems like I've missed some context here! It'll be very challenging, given
my
> other work load, to get many of the proposals written up in time for that.
I think, not all proposals would need to be fully prepared for this session,
since we will have other QB sessions coming.

> On the question of XBRL/QB alignment then I'd like to understand what the
> goal is here and what is required ...
>
> It might be that this is simply another usage of QB, in which case it
could
> indeed be mentioned in the use case document and that would suffice.
> 
> It might that this usage is sufficiently important but non-trivial to
carry out
> that it would be worth going further and giving advice on how to do it.
For
> example, that could take the form of a separate non-normative working
> group Note.
> 
> Or it might be there are some changes needed to the core QB vocabulary to
> enable this usage. If that's the situation then we need to know precisely
> what that would entail before deciding to attempt it. I'm very nervous of
> scope creep. For example, IMHO anything that gets close to business rules
is
> absolutely out of scope - there are enough business rule standards already
:)

I can try to have some slides about XBRL and how it relates to QB. We could
then have a short discussion about having QB as a use case.

I also guess that business rules are out of scope, however, the possible
usage of QB in combination with rules could be interesting for a larger
community and, if resources permit, might be put in our cookbook or in the
QB use case document, for instance.

> I'd rather get a clearer picture of what's involved here before we go
setting
> set up telecons with invited XBRL experts. Otherwise we send a signal that
> we are planning work which in fact we are not currently committed to, and
is
> possibly beyond our charter.
Understood.

Best,

Benedikt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:27 PM
> To: Benedikt Kämpgen
> Cc: 'Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA)'; richard@cyganiak.de; GLD Chairs
> Subject: Re: QB Vocab GLD focus [ was RE: Feedback on Ingredients for High
> Quality Linked Data section of Linked Data Cookbook]
> 
> Hi Benedikt,
> 
> My plan with the exist QB issues is to work through them, proposing a
> possible resolution to each (some of which may be "do nothing in this
round
> of standardization"). Once we have some proposals and initial on-list
> discussion will be a good time for dedicated time in a telecon.
> 
> I wasn't aware of any plan to have a "first QB telecon" on the 17th.
> Seems like I've missed some context here! It'll be very challenging, given
my
> other work load, to get many of the proposals written up in time for that.
> 
> On the question of XBRL/QB alignment then I'd like to understand what the
> goal is here and what is required ...
> 
> It might be that this is simply another usage of QB, in which case it
could
> indeed be mentioned in the use case document and that would suffice.
> 
> It might that this usage is sufficiently important but non-trivial to
carry out
> that it would be worth going further and giving advice on how to do it.
For
> example, that could take the form of a separate non-normative working
> group Note.
> 
> Or it might be there are some changes needed to the core QB vocabulary to
> enable this usage. If that's the situation then we need to know precisely
> what that would entail before deciding to attempt it. I'm very nervous of
> scope creep. For example, IMHO anything that gets close to business rules
is
> absolutely out of scope - there are enough business rule standards already
:)
> 
> I'd rather get a clearer picture of what's involved here before we go
setting
> set up telecons with invited XBRL experts. Otherwise we send a signal that
> we are planning work which in fact we are not currently committed to, and
is
> possibly beyond our charter.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> [Shouldn't this discussion be happening on the GLD list?]
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> On 07/05/12 15:32, Benedikt Kämpgen wrote:
> > Hi George,
> >
> > Thanks for planning a QB session on 5/17. I can give a presentation on
> > how we used QB to analyse XBRL data for the XBRL challenge [1],
> > including an outlook of what open issues there are regarding aligning
> > XBRL and QB (see my email to the public-comments).
> >
> > I think it is a great idea to invite Charles, David, and Herm to the
> > QB telecon, since they will add useful comments regarding XBRL use
> > cases for QB. However, before doing so, I would like to ask Dave and
> Richard.
> >
> > @Dave, Richard: What are your thoughts about including XBRL use cases
> > to QB work? Should we rather concentrate first on current QB issues
> > [2] or would it be fine to invite XBRL people to our first QB telecon
> > on 5/17? Are there points for the agenda that we shouldn't miss?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Benedikt
> >
> > [1]<http://xbrl.us/research/appdev/pages/275.aspx#>
> > [2]<http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/products/3>
> >

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 14:33:23 UTC