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: Thu, 09 May 2013 14:42:20 +0100
Message-ID: <518BA7BC.70608@gmail.com>
To: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 08/05/13 11:51, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
> 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?

I have now gone ahead and done that and updated the LC tracking page 
accordingly.

Since we have previously responded each of these commenters and 
addressed all except the editorial fixes I think it's reasonable to proceed.

Dave

>
> 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 Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:42:50 UTC

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