Difference between revisions of "Data Cube CR transition"

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added link to timetable page)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
== Title ==
 
== Title ==
  
 +
The RDF Data Cube Vocabulary
  
 
== Document Abstract ==
 
== Document Abstract ==
<i> Take from the document itself.</i>
+
 
 +
There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to
 +
publish
 +
multi-dimensional data, such as statistics, on the web in such a way
 +
that it can be linked to related data sets and concepts. The Data Cube
 +
vocabulary provides a means to do this using the W3C [http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/ RDF]
 +
(Resource Description Framework) standard. The model underpinning the
 +
Data Cube vocabulary is
 +
compatible with the cube model that underlies [http://sdmx.org SDMX] (Statistical Data
 +
and Metadata eXchange), an ISO standard for exchanging and sharing
 +
statistical data and metadata among organizations. The Data Cube
 +
vocabulary is a core foundation which supports extension
 +
vocabularies to enable publication of other aspects of
 +
statistical data flows or other multi-dimensional data sets.
  
  
 
== Status section and important changes to the document ==
 
== Status section and important changes to the document ==
* <i>What changes have been made to the document since Last Call?</i>
 
  
 +
The changes are recorded in the document [https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/index.html#change-history Change History] and reproduced below for convenience:
 +
 +
* Section 1. Modified diagram to clarify that qb:Slice is a sub class of qb:ObservationGroup
 +
* Section 5.1. Moved description of data set here for greater clarity, was in section 7.
 +
* Section 6.2. Further clarified the status of COG RDF vocabularies.
 +
* Example 6.3. Retitled for clarity.
 +
* Section 6.4, corrected "with multiple observations" to "with multiple measures".
 +
* Section 6.4. Added mention of qb:Attachable (previously only mentioned in the vocabulary reference.
 +
* Section 6.5. Rewritten description of handling of multiple measures for greater clarity.
 +
* Section 6.5.2. Removed reference to "SDMX-in-RDF vocabulary" which is not part of this specification.
 +
* Section 6.5.2 clarified that the special nature of qb:measureType is a divergence from SDMX.
 +
* Section 7. Change terminology from "internal and external metadata" to "structural and reference" metadata for compatibility with SDMX terminology.
 +
* Section 8.2. Clarified that sub properties of skos:narrower may be used.
 +
* Section 8.3. Removed third bullet on the motivation for qb:HierarchicalCodeList (exhaustivity and mutual exclusion).
 +
* Added reference to SDMX User Guide as additional background context.
 +
* Added complete example Data Cube as an appendix, providing a link to it from earlier on in the document.
 +
* Section 10. Clarified that abbreviated form is an option, and there is not requirement to use it in place of normalized form.
 +
* Various typographical corrections.
  
 
== Current URI ==
 
== Current URI ==
  
 +
Current publication URI is http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-data-cube-20130312/
 +
 +
Proposed CR document is current at: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/static-cr.html
  
 
== Final URI ==
 
== Final URI ==
  
 +
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-vocab-data-cube-20130523/
  
 
==Implementations==
 
==Implementations==
  
* <i>Are there any implementation requirements beyond the defaults of the Process Document? For instance, is the expectation to show two complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented twice in some piece of software?
+
=== CR Exit criteria ===
* What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional features? In general, the Director expects mandatory features and optional features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability) may require less implementability testing.
+
* Is there a preliminary implementation report? The implementation report should be a detailed matrix showing which software implements each feature of the specification.
+
* What are expectations about additional software that is expected to implement the specification during CR?
+
* What is the minimal duration of the CR period? Estimate of how long it will take before requesting PR?
+
* Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day or workshop? Is one planned?)?
+
* Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented? If not, what metrics will the WG use? If there are special conditions for this specification related to evaluation of implementations, what are they? Are test suites planned at any time? If there are tests or test suites available, are there links between the tests and the features of the specification they purport to test?</i>
+
  
<i>It would be useful (but not required) to report on all implementations we've found, even if they don't conform.</i>
+
The working group intends to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after having met the following criteria:
  
  <i>Our Exit Criteria for our Vocabs is:
+
* Two independently developed data sources have been demonstrated which comprise either [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf well-formed abbreviated Data Cubes] or [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf well-formed Data Cubes] which pass all retained [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf-rules integrity checks].
  1. We should show that every single term in the vocab has been used in at least two data sources.  When doing this, we don't check if it's been used correctly.
+
  2. We will have a set of SPARQL queries, and each query comes with a description of the expected results.  Like: this is a list of all the orgs mentioned in your data. We'll run these SPARQL queries and see if the results seem to match the description. We want to have two publishers that pass all of these.
+
  3. We in the WG will prepare a checklist or script saying which things need to be checked. Implementors will look at their data to see if it meets those criteria. For example:  none of the non-org term has the same semantics as an org term.  We'll say "look at your data and check for this".
+
(As agreed at [http://www.w3.org/2013/04/12-gld-minutes.html F2F3].)</i>
+
  
Editors will need to explain the full methodology for this document in this section.
+
The notion of ''retention'' is described below.
 +
 
 +
We do not divide the vocabulary into "feature" groups of individual terms since most parts of the vocabulary are needed in order to represent a well-formed Data Cube.
 +
 
 +
An implementation report will comprise:
 +
 
 +
* an outline description of the implementation;
 +
* a declaration that the data source passes all defined [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf-rules integrity checks] 'or' a list of checks that were not passed;
 +
* optionally, for any integrity check that was not passed, evidence on whether the check is inappropriate or has a technical flaw or the failure results from a flaw in the normalization algorithm;
 +
* whether the data source is an ''abbreviated'' cube (i.e. is not a ''well-formed Data Cube'' but is a ''well-formed abbreviated Data Cube'');
 +
* optionally, sample data or a public endpoint from which a sample of the data may be obtained.
 +
 
 +
=== At Risk features ===
 +
 
 +
Two aspects of the specification were marked ''At Risk'' at Last Call and remain ''At Risk'' for the CR period.
 +
 
 +
The [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#normalize-algorithm normalization algorithm] is at risk. If implementation experience reveals a problem with the normalization algorithm but the CR exit criteria are met my two independent implementations demonstrating well-formed (non-abbreviated) Data Cubes then the specification MAY proceed with the at risk algorithm removed.
 +
 
 +
The specific set of [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf-rules integrity checks] is at risk. The implementation experience may reveal technical errors in one or more rules, or may indicate that one or more of the constraints is too onerous.  We anticipate that if such a problem is revealed then one option would be to remove the flawed ''at risk'' rule, retaining the rest of the rules. If that situation arises the Working Group will consider whether to recommend:
 +
* that the specification should proceed retaining just the subset of ''at risk'' rules which have been validated by the implementation phase;
 +
* or, that a specification revision cycle is required.
 +
 
 +
This decision will be based on the number of rules which prove problematic and whether the issue is with the technical implementation or the intent of the rules. If too few rules are retained then the robustness of the CR exit criteria would be in doubt. If an isolated rule is deemed inappropriate, and its loss would not impact interoperability, then the Working Group could reasonable recommend proceeding on the basis of the retained subset of rules.
 +
 
 +
=== Known implementations ===
 +
 
 +
A list of known implementations at present is maintained at [[Data Cube Implementations]].
  
 
== Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not) ==
 
== Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not) ==
  
 +
There are no known dependencies with other groups.
  
 
== Estimated publication date ==  
 
== Estimated publication date ==  
<i>This should be the first Tuesday or Thursday after the transition meeting, which will be up to a week after the transition request is sent.  In other words, allow two weeks after transition request.</i>
 
  
 +
2013-05-23
  
 
== Record of the Working Group's decision to request the Transition ==
 
== Record of the Working Group's decision to request the Transition ==
 +
 
<i>Link to the working group meeting minutes or email where the resolution took place.</i>
 
<i>Link to the working group meeting minutes or email where the resolution took place.</i>
  
  
 
== Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements ==
 
== Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements ==
<i>Reference the relevant section in the Working Group's [[charter]].</i>
+
 
 +
The [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter charter] requirement states:
 +
 
 +
: '''Statistical "Cube" Data'''. The group will produce a vocabulary, compatible with SDMX, for expressing some kinds of statistical data. This need not be as expressive as all of SDMX, but may provide a subset as in the RDF Data Cube vocabulary. It may also include ways to annotate data to indicate its assumptions and comparability.
 +
 
 +
The specification is based directly on the previously RDF Data Cube vocabulary as so directly meets the charter requirement. It provides URIs for individual observations and groups of observations and so offers a basis for annotating data. It does not provide direct vocabulary to describe "assumptions and comparability" and so does not address the final optional aspect of the charter specification.
  
  
 
== Evidence that the document has received wide review ==
 
== Evidence that the document has received wide review ==
<i>Include links to public review comment page.</i>
+
 
 +
The summary of Last Call responses is maintained at [[Data Cube LC comments]].
 +
 
 +
The document received responses from 9 individuals or groups, outside of the working group. Four of these stated explicitly that they were already using the vocabulary.
  
  
 
== Evidence that issues have been formally addressed ==
 
== Evidence that issues have been formally addressed ==
<i>(Include links to tracker and to public review comment page.)</i>
 
  
<i>For changes in the issues list since the previous transition:
+
The summary of Last Call responses is maintained at [[Data Cube LC comments]].
* Highlight issues where the Group has declined to make a change, with rationale.
+
* Highlight issues where the Group has not satisfied a reviewer and has either not yet responded to the reviewer, or the reviewer has not yet acknowledged the Group's decision.
+
* Show, without highlighting:
+
** Issues where the Working Group has accepted a proposed change.
+
** Issues where the Working Group has clarified the specification to the satisfaction of the reviewer.</i>
+
  
 +
The only non-editorial comment has been rejected by the Working Group and this outcome has been accepted by the commenter [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Apr/0071.html].
 +
 +
''We have yet to confirm the editorial changes with the commenters, I don't know that this is critical but we should do it!''
  
 
== Objections ==
 
== Objections ==
* <i>Have there been any objections since this document went to Last Call?</i>
 
* <i>For each objection, is there a record of the decision, the objection, and attempts to satisfy the reviewer?</i>
 
  
 +
There have been no objections raised.
  
 
== Patent disclosures ==
 
== Patent disclosures ==
<i>We shouldn't have any for this, but reference the Working Group's Patent Disclosure page:  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47663/status</i>
+
 
 +
None declared.
 +
 
 +
The Working Group's Patent Disclosure page is:  http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47663/status

Revision as of 13:24, 3 May 2013

Transition to CR

This page is to organize the documentation and evidence necessary to transition a document to Candidate Recommendation. The page's content will be used for the transition request and to inform the transition meeting for that document.

This is a working page for the Government Linked Data working group. It may be subject to change/revision at any time.

Data Cube Timetable

Title

The RDF Data Cube Vocabulary

Document Abstract

There are many situations where it would be useful to be able to publish multi-dimensional data, such as statistics, on the web in such a way that it can be linked to related data sets and concepts. The Data Cube vocabulary provides a means to do this using the W3C RDF (Resource Description Framework) standard. The model underpinning the Data Cube vocabulary is compatible with the cube model that underlies SDMX (Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange), an ISO standard for exchanging and sharing statistical data and metadata among organizations. The Data Cube vocabulary is a core foundation which supports extension vocabularies to enable publication of other aspects of statistical data flows or other multi-dimensional data sets.


Status section and important changes to the document

The changes are recorded in the document Change History and reproduced below for convenience:

  • Section 1. Modified diagram to clarify that qb:Slice is a sub class of qb:ObservationGroup
  • Section 5.1. Moved description of data set here for greater clarity, was in section 7.
  • Section 6.2. Further clarified the status of COG RDF vocabularies.
  • Example 6.3. Retitled for clarity.
  • Section 6.4, corrected "with multiple observations" to "with multiple measures".
  • Section 6.4. Added mention of qb:Attachable (previously only mentioned in the vocabulary reference.
  • Section 6.5. Rewritten description of handling of multiple measures for greater clarity.
  • Section 6.5.2. Removed reference to "SDMX-in-RDF vocabulary" which is not part of this specification.
  • Section 6.5.2 clarified that the special nature of qb:measureType is a divergence from SDMX.
  • Section 7. Change terminology from "internal and external metadata" to "structural and reference" metadata for compatibility with SDMX terminology.
  • Section 8.2. Clarified that sub properties of skos:narrower may be used.
  • Section 8.3. Removed third bullet on the motivation for qb:HierarchicalCodeList (exhaustivity and mutual exclusion).
  • Added reference to SDMX User Guide as additional background context.
  • Added complete example Data Cube as an appendix, providing a link to it from earlier on in the document.
  • Section 10. Clarified that abbreviated form is an option, and there is not requirement to use it in place of normalized form.
  • Various typographical corrections.

Current URI

Current publication URI is http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-vocab-data-cube-20130312/

Proposed CR document is current at: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/static-cr.html

Final URI

http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-vocab-data-cube-20130523/

Implementations

CR Exit criteria

The working group intends to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after having met the following criteria:

The notion of retention is described below.

We do not divide the vocabulary into "feature" groups of individual terms since most parts of the vocabulary are needed in order to represent a well-formed Data Cube.

An implementation report will comprise:

  • an outline description of the implementation;
  • a declaration that the data source passes all defined integrity checks 'or' a list of checks that were not passed;
  • optionally, for any integrity check that was not passed, evidence on whether the check is inappropriate or has a technical flaw or the failure results from a flaw in the normalization algorithm;
  • whether the data source is an abbreviated cube (i.e. is not a well-formed Data Cube but is a well-formed abbreviated Data Cube);
  • optionally, sample data or a public endpoint from which a sample of the data may be obtained.

At Risk features

Two aspects of the specification were marked At Risk at Last Call and remain At Risk for the CR period.

The normalization algorithm is at risk. If implementation experience reveals a problem with the normalization algorithm but the CR exit criteria are met my two independent implementations demonstrating well-formed (non-abbreviated) Data Cubes then the specification MAY proceed with the at risk algorithm removed.

The specific set of integrity checks is at risk. The implementation experience may reveal technical errors in one or more rules, or may indicate that one or more of the constraints is too onerous. We anticipate that if such a problem is revealed then one option would be to remove the flawed at risk rule, retaining the rest of the rules. If that situation arises the Working Group will consider whether to recommend:

  • that the specification should proceed retaining just the subset of at risk rules which have been validated by the implementation phase;
  • or, that a specification revision cycle is required.

This decision will be based on the number of rules which prove problematic and whether the issue is with the technical implementation or the intent of the rules. If too few rules are retained then the robustness of the CR exit criteria would be in doubt. If an isolated rule is deemed inappropriate, and its loss would not impact interoperability, then the Working Group could reasonable recommend proceeding on the basis of the retained subset of rules.

Known implementations

A list of known implementations at present is maintained at Data Cube Implementations.

Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not)

There are no known dependencies with other groups.

Estimated publication date

2013-05-23

Record of the Working Group's decision to request the Transition

Link to the working group meeting minutes or email where the resolution took place.


Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements

The charter requirement states:

Statistical "Cube" Data. The group will produce a vocabulary, compatible with SDMX, for expressing some kinds of statistical data. This need not be as expressive as all of SDMX, but may provide a subset as in the RDF Data Cube vocabulary. It may also include ways to annotate data to indicate its assumptions and comparability.

The specification is based directly on the previously RDF Data Cube vocabulary as so directly meets the charter requirement. It provides URIs for individual observations and groups of observations and so offers a basis for annotating data. It does not provide direct vocabulary to describe "assumptions and comparability" and so does not address the final optional aspect of the charter specification.


Evidence that the document has received wide review

The summary of Last Call responses is maintained at Data Cube LC comments.

The document received responses from 9 individuals or groups, outside of the working group. Four of these stated explicitly that they were already using the vocabulary.


Evidence that issues have been formally addressed

The summary of Last Call responses is maintained at Data Cube LC comments.

The only non-editorial comment has been rejected by the Working Group and this outcome has been accepted by the commenter [1].

We have yet to confirm the editorial changes with the commenters, I don't know that this is critical but we should do it!

Objections

There have been no objections raised.

Patent disclosures

None declared.

The Working Group's Patent Disclosure page is: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47663/status