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

Re: [QB] CR preparation

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 11:51:42 +0100
Message-ID: <518A2E3E.2060509@gmail.com>
To: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>

I have updated the QB CR document in preparation for tomorrow's vote.

o Removed the list of editorial changes in response to Sandro's suggestion.

o Updated the static CR render to show min CR period as 4 weeks.

o Added a diff.

Still need to respond to commenters on the final disposition of their 
editorial comments. Richard, shall I go ahead and do that?

Dave

On 03/05/13 15:48, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Richard, all,
>
> I've progressed the preparation for moving Data Cube to CR. Details
> below. Please check since we need the WG to be happy that everything in
> place for this (and for ORG) in time for Thursday's vote.
>
> 1. I've recorded all the editorial changes made in response to Last Call
> comments in the document [1].
>
> 2. We ideally need to get back to each commenter to confirm how we have
> dealt with their comments. We've done that, and have acknowledgements,
> for all non-editorial comments but haven't yet done so for the editorial
> changes. Richard are you OK for me to go ahead and do that?
>
> 3. I've created a static render of the proposed CR version of document
> at [2]. Pubrules seems happy. As usual this will not look right in
> Chrome thanks to security restrictions. This will be part of the
> documentation package we will be voting on so needs checking with the
> stuff below.
>
> I've set the same arbitrary CR minimum period as for ORG. We need to
> agree on what the right answer is for both of them.
>
> 4. I've filled in the our CR transition page [3]. The key aspect is the
> CR exit criteria. As discussed last Thursday I'm proposing that Data
> Cube conformance be tested using the integrity constraints defined in
> the spec. Unlike ORG, I'm not suggesting splitting the vocabulary into
> feature groups.
>
> I'm suggesting that the normalization algorithm and integrity checks,
> that were At Risk at Last Call remain At Risk through CR. This requires
> a bit of care since we need most of the integrity checks to survive in
> order to use them for CR exit! If the phrasing on the CR page isn't
> clear let me know. If it is clear but you don't like it then definitely
> let me know :)
>
> 5. Linked from the CR page I've started a page of implementations [4].
> I've just filled in those I know directly about and the ones mentioned
> by people in the Last Call comments. I know there are a lot more around,
> especially via DERI so help on filling our more examples please.
>
> Sandro, chairs, what else is needed?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> [1]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#change-history
>
>
> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/static-cr.html
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_CR_transition
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/Data_Cube_Implementations
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 10:52:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:52:08 UTC