AW: AW: AW: ORG browser

Dear Dave,

Thanks for your answer to which I now come back after experimenting with the Linked Data Explorer [1]:

>Note that simply resolving URIs is not enough anyway. Unless you have
>slices or your URIs resolve to provide incoming as well as outgoing
>links (in which case you are going to get some *really* big result
>pages). You would need to do it via a SPARQL endpoint.

I agree that the QB validator should not need to do extra data fetching.

In general, however, I think that a SPARQL endpoint should not be a necessity to get all data for a QB dataset. In case the number of observations is too large, slices can be used to split observations into several resolvable uris; in case the number of observations is reasonable, the incoming qb:dataSet links - in my opinion - should be returned with the dataset URI.

Unfortunately, not all datasets (e.g., Linked SDMX Data by Sarven [2]) are doing this, currently.

Best,

Benedikt

[1] <http://www.ldcx.linked-data-cubes.org:8000/ldcx-trunk/ldcx/ld-cubes-explorer.html>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Mar/0016.html>

________________________________________
Von: Dave Reynolds [dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 15. Juli 2013 13:54
An: Benedikt Kaempgen
Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: ORG browser

Hi Benedikt,

Short answer: no

Longer answer ...

I don't think it is appropriate to complicate the service. This is not a
general purpose QB validator, it is just a tool to help us gather
implementation evidence to exit QR. We don't want the service to take on
all the complication of data fetching, coping with fragile connections
and bad media types, doing its own size limits etc.

It is pretty reasonable to ask people to carve out a reasonably size
data sample to demonstrate compliance.

Note that simply resolving URIs is not enough anyway. Unless you have
slices or your URIs resolve to provide incoming as well as outgoing
links (in which case you are going to get some *really* big result
pages). You would need to do it via a SPARQL endpoint.

Dave


On 15/07/13 12:22, Benedikt Kaempgen wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply.
>
> To make the validator even more useful, would it be possible to allow checking of URIs of qb:DataSets, directly?
>
> The validator would resolve the URI and run the integrity checks, directly. Since, possibly, not all required RDF is provided by the qb:DataSet URI, the validator could also resolve the qb:DataStructureDefinition URI, and in turn, the qb:ComponentProperty URIs and qb:CodeList URIs.
>
> Best,
>
> Benedikt
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Dave Reynolds [dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Juli 2013 21:37
> An: Benedikt Kaempgen
> Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group
> Betreff: Re: AW: ORG browser
>
> That was the internal address while it was in alpha, the current (which
> probably should be treated as beta) release is at the official location
> as linked off the implementation reporting page (in turn linked off the
> CR document):
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/validator/qb/qb-validator
>
> Dave
>
> On 14/07/13 18:57, Benedikt Kaempgen wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> +1 to a Data Cube checker.
>>
>> Can you give more details on how to use it? It [2] seems down at the moment but maybe I am just not using it correctly.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Benedikt
>>
>> [1] <http://gld01.w3.org/qb-upload>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Dave Reynolds [dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Montag, 27. Mai 2013 22:34
>> An: Government Linked Data Working Group
>> Betreff: Re: ORG browser
>>
>> I have updated the ORG browser site.
>>
>> Thanks to Ghislain for pointing out some problems. Those have been fixed
>> and, for now at least, I've limited to upload sizes to 5Mb. If that
>> proves a problem I will change it (but may need to request more disk space).
>>
>> I've also implemented a Data Cube checker on the same site [2]. I know I
>> was previously unhappy with doing that but I've implemented a linear
>> time version of the expensive quadratic check (IC-12). I believe/hope
>> that makes it viable. Similar upload limits apply.
>>
>> With these changes I think the validation site can be regarded as now
>> "beta" rather than "alpha", which is good enough to go ahead with CR
>> publication.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> [2] http://gld01.w3.org/qb-upload
>>
>> On 23/05/13 14:25, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>> I've deployed an alpha version of the proposed ORG browser [1] for use
>>> in gathering implementation conformance information.
>>>
>>> See [2] for a view of the artificial example data from the validation
>>> suite [4] and see [3] for a sample resource within that upload.
>>>
>>> This will need some reworking to explain the context better in the front
>>> page and deal with issues of usage tracking that were raised at the CR
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> [1] http://gld01.w3.org/
>>> [2] http://gld01.w3.org/view?upload=upload-2013-05-22T15-39-45-0
>>> [3]
>>> http://gld01.w3.org/org-view?upload=upload-2013-05-22T15-39-45-0&uri=http%3a%2f%2fexample.com%2fsample1%23unit1
>>>
>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/wiki/ORG_Validation_Suite
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 17:58:45 UTC