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

Hi Sarven, 

Thanks for your last comments.. I will deal here with some of the points that seem very "easy" to change ;) 

> Some small editorial stuff:
> 
> * I think there is an encoding issue with the document e.g., "CSARVENón-Capadisli"
> 
> * http://http:// -> http://

Done!
> 
> * 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
> 
Merci! 
> * ". Others include" -> "Others include"
> 
Done!
> * In 19. Machine Access to Data section, you might want to consider changing the URLhttp://labs.mondeca.com/sparqlEndpointsStatus/ to its new location: http://sparqles.okfn.org/
Yep, although there is an indirection from the former link to the later ;). ACK!
> 
> * Missing <ul> after "following good practice in mind:"

Done!
> 
> * 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].
I see, but could you clarify why here http://www.deri.ie/users/sarven-capadisli/ , they said you are not currently at DERI? If the folks at DERI confirm adding your affiliation at DERI, so it will be updated. 

> 
> 
> In 10. URI Construction, I still feel it would be appropriate and relevant to mentionhttp://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.

I think your work is already cited inside the document of " 10 Rules for persistent URI" ..
 " as you can see here http://philarcher.org/diary/2013/uripersistence/#recs . 
> 
> In 11. URI Policy for Persistence section, would it make sense to mention w3id.org?
Why not? Any text introducing it ? TIA.
> 
> 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.

I left sections 13, 18 and 21 to be decided with the rest of the editors.
More to come …in for the next iteration of the last last minutes comments… 

Thanks for your time. 

Cheers,
Ghislain