W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Reveiw Metadata

From: Debattista, Jeremy <Jeremy.Debattista@iais-extern.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:25:24 +0000
To: Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>
CC: DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>, "math.semantic.web@gmail.com" <math.semantic.web@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4B38E21-773E-44D4-91B4-37526A48ABC3@iais-extern.fraunhofer.de>
Hi Steve,

I think that such provenance metadata would be important and in the scope for such a vocabulary (side note: we had the idea to add this to the daQ ontology, which Iíve showed during the London Meeting). This could be ideal to add a link between a computed metric or graph (in the case of the daQ) with a Prov-O [1] instance. I am sure that there are more factors which should be taken into consideration wrt quality, but on the other hand I believe that no ontology should be bloated with extra concepts. Therefore, I suggest an extended Prov-O ontology which takes into consideration this extra metadata.

Cheers,
Jer

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/

On 21 Apr 2014, at 19:04, Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com<mailto:adler1@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

Do we think that online reviews are within scope for our Data Quality Vocabulary?  It seems many reviews theses days are from contract work - people hired for small amounts to write reviews - yet nowhere can one find standards that require reviewers to publish metadata about how much they were paid, by whom, and what their qualifications are to provide the review.

Is this already encompassed by other standards?  Could we add these vocabulary items more generally?  What do you think about this idea?


Best Regards,

Steve

Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 12:17:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:24:12 UTC