AW: [QB] Disposition of issues

Thanks for this overview, Dave,

Here my comments to the issues (the comments to the spec come with another mail):

>ISSUE-29  Well-formedness
Have not tried the queries but had a look over their meaning and have not found any errors.

>ISSUE-30  Declaring relations between cubes (bad summary)
Postpone is fine for me.

>ISSUE-31   Supporting aggregation for other than SKOS hierarchies
Although I have not tried this modelling myself, I do not find logical errors and thus agree.

However, I will have a comment to the hierarchical code list section in the spec.

>ISSUE-32   Relationship to ISO19156 - Observations & Measurements?
Agree with putting the WG's result about this issue in the QB UC document. Can someone tell me how we should proceed here? 

>ISSUE-34 Clarify or drop qb:subslice ?
Would have preferred to keep it, but ok, agree.

>ISSUE-33  Collections of observations and well-formedness of slices
I am not fully convinced that qb:ObservationGroup fully fulfills the need of publishing a latest-value-slice but I think it is a useful extension. Agree.

>ISSUE-39 Allow skos:Collections as value of qb:codeList
Agree. 

Best,

Benedikt

________________________________________
Von: Dave Reynolds [dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 16:03
An: Government Linked Data Working Group
Betreff: [QB] Disposition of issues

I'd like us to clean up the ISSUEs and ACTIONs list for Data Cube.

Here's a summary of where I believe we are on each of these.

ISSUE-29  Well-formedness

Discussed on list thread [1]. I believe we have a good set of criteria
and SPARQL queries to implement them. This is reflected in section 13 of
the current draft [2].   Recommend move to PENDING_REVIEW

ISSUE-30  Declaring relations between cubes (bad summary)

Discussed on list thread [3]. No disagreement with postponing. Note
added to spec about possibility of future extensions to support this
(section 10.4 [4]).         Recommend moving to POSTPONED.

ISSUE-31   Supporting aggregation for other than SKOS hierarchies

Discussed on list thread [5] and [10]. Compromise reached with the
introduction of qb:HierarchicalCodeList, qb:hierarchyRoot and
qb:parentChildProperty. Described in revised section 10.3 [6]. Recommend
moving this to PENDING_REVIEW and then to CLOSED once Richard and
Benedikt are happy with it.

ISSUE-32   Relationship to ISO19156 - Observations & Measurements?

Proposal to write information note on this as part of the Data Cube
requirements document. Should remain OPEN.

ISSUE-33  Collections of observations and well-formedness of slices

Discussed on list starting with thread [7]. Solution reached with
introduction of qb:ObservationGroup and qb:observationGroup. Described
at end of section 9 of the spec [8]. Recommend CLOSE.

ISSUE-34 Clarify or drop qb:subslice ?

Discussed on list starting thread [9]. While Benedikt has a reasonable
use case, Richard and I felt that given the limited time available to
resolve the problems it was better to remove this. It can always be
reintroduced in a future extension. Removal done. Recommend CLOSE.

ISSUE-37 Align Data Cube with SDMX 2.1

This remains OPEN for now. If Richard is able to deal with it in the
time available then that would be wonderful. Otherwise move to POSTPONED.

ISSUE-39 Allow skos:Collections as value of qb:codeList

Discussed on thread [10]. Handled by generalizing range of qb:codeList.
Recommend CLOSE.

ACTION-30       pending review  Produce editor's draft of Data Cube spec
Richard Cyganiak        2012-02-01      Data Cube Vocabulary

Obsolete, recommend CLOSE.

ACTION-42       pending review  Update
http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Vocabulary    Richard Cyganiak
2012-02-02      Data Cube Vocabulary

Obsolete, recommend CLOSE.

ACTION-56       open    Address QB feedback from Curran Richard Cyganiak
2012-03-04      Data Cube Vocabulary

This feedback was all dealt with some time ago. Recommend CLOSE.

ACTION-63       open    Improve SDMX references Dave Reynolds   2012-04-27      Data
Cube Vocabulary

Done, request CLOSE.

ACTION-64       open    Provide informative references to COG RDF schemes

Done, request CLOSE.

Dave

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0106.html

[2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#wf

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0085.html

[4]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#schemes-aggregation

[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0097.html

[6]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#schemes-hierarchy-nonskos

[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0087.html
Some replies are not correctly linked to the thread in the mail archives.

[8] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#slices

[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0084.html
Some replies are not correctly linked to the thread in the mail archives.

[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Mar/0008.html

Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 17:19:37 UTC