W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [QB] Last Call document draft

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:53:54 +0000
Message-ID: <5138E242.5010206@gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
P.S. I've set the publication date as next Tuesday and end of LC period 
as 8 April (just before the f2f). Change these as needed.


On 07/03/13 17:30, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Many thanks, those are good suggestions and I have made all those
> proposed changes.
> I've done various fixes to conform to pubrules and generated a static
> snapshot that is pubrules clean [1]. It is at:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/static.html
> Cheers,
> Dave
> [1] There are some issues to be aware of with pubrules if you need to
> change the document and regenerate a snapshot.
> (a) Use "Save as HTML (source)" not XHTML, I got too many XHTML
> validation failures to be worth addressing.
> (b) Pubrules doesn't like us using https to link to the W3C style sheets
> so I have left them as http. This means that Chrome will not display the
> styling when viewed from https://dvcs.w3.org because it is a non-https
> link to a different domain. Firefox is happy and Chrome is happy with
> the live source so that's all we need.
> (c) Pubrules doesn't like the copyright statement that respec inserts.
> This seems to be pubrules not handling whitespace rather than an actual
> problem. I gave in trying to fix this at the respec end so did a manual
> replace of the copyright header of the respec output with the approved
> text. However, the copyright statement that pubrules suggests can't be
> cut and pasted directly because that breaks validation (sigh). So you
> have to take the pubrules text and replace "acronym" with "abbr" and
> than manually replace the respec output with it. I.e. with:
>   <p class="copyright"><a
> href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a>
>  2013 <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><abbr title="World Wide Web
> Consortium">W3C</abbr></a><sup></sup> (<a
> href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology">MIT</abbr></a>, <a href="http://www.ercim.eu/"><abbr
> title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and
> Mathematics">ERCIM</abbr></a>, <a
> href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>, <a
> href="http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/">Beihang</a>), All Rights Reserved. W3C <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">liability</a>,
> <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">trademark</a>
> and <a
> href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document
> use</a> rules apply.</p>
> On 07/03/13 16:14, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Dave,
>> Here are my comments. Some of them I already mentioned in the call.
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> Remove the headline of sub-heading 2.1 "A Data Cube Vocabulary", just
>> leave these paragraphs directly as the start of Section 2.
>> Remove "This section is non-normative" from sub-sections 2.2-2.5. It's
>> redundant since the entire Section is non-normative.
>> Remove the Note in 2.3 regarding SDMX 2.1.
>> Propose dropping Section 2.4, "Relationship to SCOVO", as it's really
>> only of historical interest right now. If you find this is too
>> controversial at this stage, add a note along these lines: "At Risk:
>> While this subsection provided useful context when this specification
>> was first drafted, the editors feel that it is now only of historical
>> interest and perhaps best removed in the interest of brevity." If
>> removed, perhaps add a bit to the Acknowledgements: "Data Cube was
>> motivated by a desire to improve on earlier work in the area of
>> representing statistical data in RDF. The SCOVO specification, written
>> by Danny Ayers, Lee Feigenbaum, Wolfgang Halb, Michael Hausenblas, Tom
>> Heath and Yves Raimond, was a noteworthy inspiration."
>> Rename Section 3. "Namespaces" to "Namespaces and Document
>> Conventions", and move the contents of 2.6 "Document conventions" into
>> the section. The result would be that all sub-sections of 2 are
>> non-normative.
>> Section 3 needs to add a mapping for the eg: prefix, perhaps to
>> http://example.org/ns# or somesuch. Just to make clear that eg: is
>> really just an example prefix.
>> I'd prefer if the table in Section 3 started with the qb: prefix. It's
>> currently not in the table, but mentioned only in a prose sentence
>> below the table. That is kind of easy to miss, and the namespace URI
>> is a really important piece of information.
>> I edited the document and removed the <h2>Conformance</h2> title from
>> the markup in Section 4. We had two headlines there, because ReSpec
>> automatically adds the headline for the section that has
>> id="conformance".
>> Propose to move Section 6 "An example" to 5.3.
>> Propose to rename 12 "Abbreviation and normalization" to "Abbreviated
>> and normalized data cubes".
>> Propose to remove the term "flattened" from Section 12 (and everywhere
>> else it's mentioned), use the better term "normalized" instead. So we
>> have "abbreviated" and "normalized" cubes.
>> Add a note to 12.1 saying it's At Risk. Move last paragraph before the
>> 12.1 headline into 12.1 to make things more self-contained.
>> On 5 Mar 2013, at 14:28, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>> I've released what I hope is a reasonable initial candidate for the
>>> Last Call WD for the Data Cube vocabulary. This is preparation for
>>> the vote on Thursday.
>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html
>>> I'll send a separate note around on where we are with the various
>>> issues. However, I think this draft resolves each of the issues in
>>> the way discussed in the separate email threads.
>>> Richard please check this. Feel free to fix minor problems or ask me
>>> to. Major problems should probably be raised on the list.
>>> Benedikt - thanks for volunteering to do a review check. Please let
>>> us know of any problems that you spot.
>>> The most substantial change from the last WD is the section on
>>> criteria for well-formed Data Cubes (ISSUE-29 [1]). The criteria
>>> discussions have been on the list. The SPARQL queries which are
>>> provided (to back up the narrative descriptions of the criteria) have
>>> all been checked on at least some positive and negative examples. The
>>> code for this is in the same repository where the vocabulary source
>>> sits [2].
>>> I have one more task before putting down the edit token, which is to
>>> find a way to have a "Contributors" section to list Jeni, rather than
>>> leave here in the Acknowledgements.
>>> Dave
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/29
>>> [2] https://code.google.com/p/publishing-statistical-data/
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 18:54:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:06 UTC