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

On 12/15/2013 04:05 PM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
>> * 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.

Since I initially joined and was part of the WG majority of the time 
with my DERI affiliation, therefore I figured that it'd be appropriate 
to give that attribution. *Richard*, how do you feel about this? 
Otherwise, no affiliation is fine.

>> In 10. URI Construction, I still feel it would be appropriate and
>> relevant to mentionhttp://csarven.ca/linked-sdmx-data#uri-patternsas
>> 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 .

True that there is a citation there which is relevant, however, 
linked-sdmx-data#uri-patterns is as close as it gets to constructing RDF 
Data Cube artifacts! Have a glance at it =) Any way, I won't push it 
further and am content with BP Chairs last call on that.

>> In 11. URI Policy for Persistence section, would it make sense to
>> mentionw3id.org <http://w3id.org/>?
> Why not? Any text introducing it ? TIA.

"w3id.org is another service that is similar PURL. It provides a secure, 
permanent URL re-direction service for Web applications. This service is 
run by the W3C Permanent Identifier Community Group. There is a growing 
group of organizations that have pledged responsibility to ensure its 
operation" ?

BTW, there is no link to purl.org and there should be one.

>> 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
>> mentionhttp://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.

Thanks!

-Sarven

Received on Sunday, 15 December 2013 15:40:38 UTC