AW: ISSUE-69 (IC-8 Errata): Typo in IC-8 rule [Data Cube Vocabulary]

Hi,

> My advocacy is that we regard this as a non-substantive error:
>    o the intent of the rule is clear
>    o the published query will work for the normal case where a single 
> Data Cube is being checked for well-formedness
>    o all current implementation reports are unchanged if we correct 
> the rule
>    o we have precedent with ISSUE-68 of accepting a similar scale of 
> change without a process reset

+ 1

Best

Benedikt
________________________________________
Von: Sandro Hawke [sandro@w3.org]
Gesendet: Montag, 4. November 2013 16:22
An: Dave Reynolds; Government Linked Data Working Group
Betreff: Re: ISSUE-69 (IC-8 Errata): Typo in IC-8 rule [Data Cube Vocabulary]

On 11/02/2013 03:11 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> We need to decide how to handle this issue. Please could the chairs
> add this to the agenda for the next meeting.
>
> My advocacy is that we regard this as a non-substantive error:
>    o the intent of the rule is clear
>    o the published query will work for the normal case where a single
> Data Cube is being checked for well-formedness
>    o all current implementation reports are unchanged if we correct
> the rule
>    o we have precedent with ISSUE-68 of accepting a similar scale of
> change without a process reset
>

+1

      -- Sandro

> If this is a reasonable argument then I would like a formal working
> group resolution to this effect.
>
> If we think this change is not acceptable then we would need to decide
> whether to proceed without IC-8 (the integrity check section is marked
> at risk in such a way that we could withdraw the rule entirely).
>
> Dave
>
>
> On 02/11/13 19:00, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker
> wrote:
>> ISSUE-69 (IC-8 Errata): Typo in IC-8 rule [Data Cube Vocabulary]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/69
>>
>> Raised by: Dave Reynolds
>> On product: Data Cube Vocabulary
>>
>> There is a typo in the SPARQL query used to implement integrity check
>> IC-8 (http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#ic-8) in the Data Cube
>> specification.
>>
>> The published query is:
>>
>>      ASK {
>>        ?slicekey a qb:SliceKey;
>>            qb:componentProperty ?prop .
>>        ?dsd qb:sliceKey ?sliceKey .
>>        FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?dsd qb:component [qb:componentProperty
>> ?prop] }
>>      }
>>
>> However, the second occurrence of ?slicekey is mis-typed as ?sliceKey
>> making it a different variable.
>>
>> For a data set comprising a single data cube, the normal case, this
>> has no effect. There will be only one match to ?dsd (the Data
>> Structure Definition) and the check will work. However, in cases
>> where there are multiple data cubes with different DSDs within the
>> same graph then the rule will incorrectly fail.
>>
>> This does not affect any reported implementation conformance results.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 14:46:21 UTC