Difference between revisions of "Data Cube PR transition"
|Line 68:||Line 68:|
=== Minor changes ===
=== Minor changes ===
== Evidence of wide review ==
== Evidence of wide review ==
Revision as of 18:58, 21 November 2013
- 1 Transition to Proposed Recommendation
- 1.1 Title
- 1.2 URIs
- 1.3 Document Abstract
- 1.4 Status of the document
- 1.5 Changes to the document
- 1.6 Evidence of wide review
- 1.7 Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
- 1.8 Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
- 1.9 Formal objections
- 1.10 Dependencies on other groups
- 1.11 Record the group's decision to request advancement
- 1.12 Expected date of publication
Transition to Proposed Recommendation
This page is for editors to organize the documentation and evidence necessary to transition a document to Proposed 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.
Structure taken from W3C Technical Report Development Process.
Data Cube CR transition request - for reference
The RDF Data Cube Vocabulary
Current CR version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-vocab-data-cube-20130625/
Proposed PR version: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/static-pr.html
Diff with CR version: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube/static-pr-diff.html
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.
The namespace for all terms in this ontology is: http://purl.org/linked-data/cube#
The vocabulary defined in this document is also available in these non-normative formats: Turtle.
Status of the document
This vocabulary was originally developed and published outside of W3C, but has been extended and further developed within the Government Linked Data Working Group.
This document was published by the Government Linked Data Working Group as a Proposed Recommendation. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation. The W3C Membership and other interested parties are invited to review the document and send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org (subscribe, archives) through 12 January 2014. Advisory Committee Representatives should consult their WBS questionnaires. Note that substantive technical comments were expected during the Last Call review period that ended 08 April 2013.
Please see the Working Group's implementation report.
Publication as a Proposed Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
Changes to the document
There have been no changes that the working group regards as substantive.
There have been two changes to the document that are of potential significance.
ISSUE-68: RDFS closure rule completeness
A case was reported  where a data set passed the Integrity Constraint (IC) rules but in fact had an error in it. There is no claim that the IC rule are complete, however, the error could be detected by a small extension of the partial RDFS closure rules included in the spec. The working group determined that the extension was a non-substantive correction since the specification already allowed implementations to use full RDFS closure and the change would not affect data, only validators. The working published a detailed description of the change  and linked it to the implementations reporting page to make sure implementors were aware of it. No concerns were raised and the WG closed the issue.
ISSUE-69: typographical error in IC-8 rule
The WG noted a typographical error in IC-8 ISSUE-69. The rule would in fact work as intended in the normal situation where the test graph contained only one Data Cube but would fail in cases where there are multiple Data Cubes. The WG determined that the intent of the rule is clear, the published query will work for the normal (single cube) case, and the correction would not affect any supplied implementation reports. On this basis the WG resolved that this could be treated as an editorial correction.
- Added namespace, and links to vocabulary file, to the Abstract for ease of reference.
- Corrected mis-statement of domain of qb:sliceKey in the reference section (was correct in the rest of the specification).
- Minor typographical corrections.
- Updated references.
- Removed CR specific text on implementation feedback and At Risk features.
Evidence of wide review
- a brief summary of the implementation methodology and CR exit criteria
- a link to the document's Implementation Reports
- a summary of conformance or success in meeting the exit criteria.
Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
Link to the relevant section in the Working Group's charter. Report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step, and include a link to the email/meeting notes when that decision was made.
Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
- the tool we used to track issues, and a link to them
- a link to the public comments page, if relevant
- a brief summary/explanation of any issues still outstanding, or a sentence explaining that all are satisfactorily resolved.
If we have received any.
Dependencies on other groups
Report any changes in dependencies with other groups — if we have any.
Record the group's decision to request advancement
This will be a link to the minutes of the working group meeting when we resolve to transition this document to PR.
Expected date of publication
This is probably the first Tuesday or Thursday after the working group resolves to transition to CR. Check with the chairs or staff contact for the group.