AW: AW: [QB-UCR] Review comments

Dear Phil,

Thanks for your thoughts, effort and the English lessons! 

Best,

Benedikt

________________________________________
Von: Phil Archer [phila@w3.org]
Gesendet: Freitag, 19. Juli 2013 19:22
An: Benedikt Kaempgen
Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group
Betreff: Re: AW: [QB-UCR] Review comments

Dear Benedikt,

I am sorry that it has taken me so long (and a perfectly justified kick
from the GLD yesterday) to respond.

Pls see inline below.

On 11/06/2013 07:04, Benedikt Kaempgen wrote:
> Dear Phil,
>
> I have now implemented [1] all feedback from Dave and would like to answer to your comments:
>
>> - it appears to be very UK focussed;
> Although there are some use cases from UK, I do not think we are solely relying on UK ones, e.g., we also have:
>
> * Publishing Excel Spreadsheets about Dutch historical census data as Linked Data
> * Eurostat SDMX as Linked Data
> * Improving trust in published sustainability information at the Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
> * Analysing published financial (XBRL) data from the SEC with common OLAP systems

Understood, yes, OK.

>
>> - it's out of date;
> In relation to the work on data cube that has been done within GLD, I think, the document 1) points to possibly future work in the QB ecosystem, and 2) partly documents the work that has been done within GLD: We have every issue [2] of data cube mentioned as an additional references for at least one derived lesson.

That's interesting. Publishing a doc like this including links to the
issue tracker is not something I've consciously noticed before but in
the circumstances it makes sense. It actually adds value and currency to
the doc since it shows the discussion that has taken place.

>
>> - it needs tidying up by a native speaker (this is emphatically not a
>> criticism, just a reality that writing a formal document in any
>> language
>> is hard, doing it in a second language is impossible).
>
> James McKinney has given editorial comments up to section 3 that I have implemented. I would be grateful for more editorial comments but though you are completely right that the text may not be as clean as from a native speaker, I think, it can be well understood.

I couldn't help myself, sorry, I put my grammarian pedant's hat on,
switched off my British spelling, engaged W3C policy on using simplified
(i.e. American) spelling and went through it again. I shortened some of
the very long frag identifiers. I've checked them all and I'm confident
they're all OK - I hope I haven't introduced errors.

I have not put it through pub rules.

>
> It would be great if you could let us know whether you are happy with the additional effort put in the document.

I definitely am.

Thank you for all your work on this and for sticking with it.

Cheers

Phil


>
> Best,
>
> Benedikt
>
> [1] <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/data-cube-ucr/index.html>
> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues?sort=product>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Phil Archer [phila@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Mai 2013 15:26
> An: Government Linked Data Working Group
> Betreff: Re: [QB-UCR] Review comments
>
> I too have been looking at the document today in an effort to have
> something to say this afternoon. Dave has gone into a lot of detail here
> and he knows the vocabulary/domain well. My comments as more or less an
> outsider are that:
>
> - it appears to be very UK focussed;
> - it's out of date;
> - it needs tidying up by a native speaker (this is emphatically not a
> criticism, just a reality that writing a formal document in any language
> is hard, doing it in a second language is impossible).
>
> Given:
>
> 1. the extensive and detailed comments that Dave has made, and my
> relatively superficial look at the doc;
> 2. the approval of QB to go to CR and the evidence that we'll be
> gathering for it to exit CR;
> 3. the amount of work required in the available time...
>
> ... is the amount of effort required to publish this justified? That's
> mostly a question for Benedikt and Richard but something we should
> probably consider on the call shortly.
>
> Phil.
>
> On 23/05/2013 14:14, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> I'm sorry about this Benedikt but having finally cleared some time to
>> look at the document I don't think it is ready to go.
>>
>> # High level comments
>>
>> 1. The requirements identified here are primarily those for additional
>> work within GLD and not for Data Cube itself. That needs to be made
>> clearer. At a minimum by improving the phrasing in the introduction.
>>
>> 2. Some requirements here are not requirements for the data cube
>> vocabulary but for associated tools/services which have not been
>> considered as part of our work. They should either not be here or they
>> need to be pulled out separately (specifically 4.8 and 4.9).
>>
>> 3. In some of the use cases it's not clear how the use case motivates
>> the requirement associated with it.
>>
>> 4. A number of the diagrams appear to have been copy from other
>> publications. This may be a copyright violation. Publication can not
>> proceed until this at least is resolved.
>>
>> 5. Given the structure of the document it is not obvious that ACTION-92
>> makes sense. Need to either add a new use case in which the O&M
>> relationship can then be illustrated (e.g. the MetOffice usage) or
>> revert to having the O&M discussion as a separate note or drop it. I'm
>> inclined towards the first of these but will need to think more about it.
>>
>> 6. Some of the "use cases" represent actual deployed systems. For those
>> then it may be appropriate to highlight "Lessons" or "Insights" rather
>> than just focus on unmet requirements.
>>
>> # Detailed/minor comments (ordered and numbered by section)
>>
>> ## 1
>>
>> o The first paragraph needs to be clarified to make the nature of the
>> requirements clearer (high level comment #1).
>>
>> ## 1.1
>>
>> o Second bullet. s/"dimensions", e.g., the specific phenomenon "weight"/
>> "dimensions", the specific phenomenon e.g. "weight"/  (otherwise it
>> sounds like the measure is an example of a dimension)
>>
>> o Figure. Not sure I see the value of this figure. Not all observations
>> are made by a person. Aggregate statistics are not observations in this
>> sense.
>>
>> ## 3.1
>>
>> o The figure here (it would help if the figures were numbered) seems to
>> be a direct copy of that in reference [SMDX 2.1]. I'm not sure what the
>> W3C processes would be for obtaining and registering clearance for such
>> reproduction but suggest that we simply not go there. Either drop the
>> diagram or do a new one.  The flows in the current diagram are confusing
>> anyway.
>>
>> ## 3.2
>>
>> o The requirement listed is not a requirement of this use case. COINS
>> works fine based on slices. I would be inclined to label this as "No
>> additional requirements beyond Data Cube". I would instead add a
>> subsection about "Lessons" and for COINS the lessen is that data cube
>> can be successfully used for publishing financial data, not just
>> statistics.
>>
>> ## 3.3
>>
>> o This use case seems to be a mix of a specific application (Dutch
>> historical census) and a generic use case (publishing spreadsheets). It
>> would be clearer if picked one or the other as the framing. I would
>> suggest the more concrete one.
>>
>> o It is not clear from the write up why the first requirement emerges
>> from this use case. Why does this data need non-SKOS hierarchies?
>>
>> ## 3.4
>>
>> o In the Turtle example the URIs need "<" replacing by "&lt;" so they
>> show up. The sdmx prefix probably should be defined, though maybe the
>> claim that this is "pseduo-turtle" is sufficient to duck that.
>>
>> ## 3.5
>>
>> o This example does not really motivate the first requirement
>> (relationship to O&M). This publisher does not use ISO19156 here and
>> does not care about the relationship. In fact this is not directly a
>> sensor network problem (the data is the result of lab-based analysis,
>> validation and classification before publication).
>>
>> o If you do add "Lessons" sections for some of the examples then the
>> lesson here is that "Data Cube can be successfully use for observation
>> and measurement data, as well as statistical data".
>>
>> ## 3.6
>>
>> o Trivial s/have to/have too/
>>
>> o Qcrumb.com is not explained or linked to, and I couldn't find any
>> useful information via Google.
>>
>> o The first requirement seems to be about publishing advice or tooling
>> requirements, not a requirement on the vocabulary design.
>>
>> ## 3.7
>>
>> o Is copyright OK on that diagram? Seems possible in that case.
>>
>> ## 3.8
>>
>> o Is copyright OK on those diagrams? Seems possible in that case.
>>
>> o Not quite clear how that requirement flows from the use case, but can
>> believe it does.
>>
>> ## 3.9
>>
>> o The requirement does not flow from the use case. It seems like the
>> requirement that would follow is "Develop a mapping between Data Cube as
>> DSPL". That would be a reasonable requirement for the Data Cube
>> eco-system but not one for the vocabulary itself.
>>
>> ## 3.11
>>
>> o The requirement is reasonable but it is not a requirement on Data Cube
>> vocabulary.
>>
>> ## 4
>>
>> o Suggest separating this section into requirements on the Data Cube
>> vocabulary update and other associated requirements (4.8, 4.9, maybe
>> DSPL one from 3.9).
>>
>> ## 4.1
>>
>> o This requirement is confusing. It is not a requirement of the GLD work
>> to build upon SMDX, Data Cube was already built upon SDMX. If we list
>> that they would would need to list all the other requirements that
>> pre-GLD Data Cube had to meet.
>>     I understand you to be saying there is a putative requirement to
>> update to SDMX 2.1 if there are specific use cases that demand it. If so
>> then should be made clearer in the title and drop the link to COINS -
>> there is no motivation to use SDMX 2.1 from the COINS use case.
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://www.w3.org/egov/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>

--

Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Saturday, 20 July 2013 14:38:16 UTC