Re: Data quality and requirements - discussion for F2F?

Hi All,
I basically agree with  Jeremy, I think we should define how quality
metadata can be represented at an abstract level in a metadata model( e.g.
Ontology). In my opinion both human- focused information and metrics based
quality should be represented in the model provided that  there are use
cases grounding these needs.

In order to make quality of dataset comparable and objective, I think It
would be great to have a set of recommended metrics and quality dimensions,
even if I am not sure such a set can be easily identified.

Anyway, If a set of metrics is going to be defined and "recommended" I
think that set should be extensible, as I tried to  stress proposing  the
LuSTRE use case and the Q-MetricExtensibility requirement in my e-mail last
week (see Quality requirements and a new use case for UCR [1] ).


Regards,
Riccardo

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2014Oct/0002.html


On 30 October 2014 12:58, Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com> wrote:

> As I am following this discussion, it occurred to me that maybe we could
> look also at who will use any statements about  and what for.
>
> On one hand, there is quality-related information that is for human
> consumption, e.g. things like the information provided at
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/help#aboutChangesToLeg and other FAQ items
> on that page. Such information can be used by humans to take decisions
> about whether they want to use the data.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, precise metrics may be used by programs to pre-select
> collections of data, but in that case we need to understand maybe a little
> bit more what kind of programs or applications would consume the metrics
> and for what purpose.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that maybe the human- focused information is a little
> easier to define (e.g. using the legislation.gov.uk as a starting point).
> We could start to define a small set of properties for those (either as
> text or using some controlled vocabulary) and look at the metrics later on
> the basis of existing applications that use quality metrics in practice. I
> agree that metrics are not that easy to define, and probably also complex
> to use.
>
>
>
> Makx
>
>
>
> *De:* Debattista, Jeremy [mailto:
> Jeremy.Debattista@iais-extern.fraunhofer.de]
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 30 de octubre de 2014 11:11
> *Para:* Bart van Leeuwen
> *CC:* Public DWBP WG; Antoine Isaac
> *Asunto:* Re: Data quality and requirements - discussion for F2F?
>
>
>
> Hi Bart, Antoine
>
>
>
> I agree with both of you that defining a vocabulary based on metrics is
> hard. From my work on data quality, I realised that different domains, use
> cases etc might require different metrics. Of course, there are those
> metrics that would be suitable for most of the use cases. What I found
> useful was to define how quality metadata should be represented at an
> abstract level [1]. Then based on this abstract ontology, we defined a
> number of quality metrics [2], some of which might be similar to those
> extracted from the DWBP use cases. On the whole, my opinion is that we have
> to provide a pragmatic solution that would be suitable for everyone within
> the community, i.e. in the future other interested parties should be able
> to define quality metrics that can be easily interoperable with other
> defined quality metrics.
>
>
>
> I would gladly join the F2F discussion remotely, if it won’t be after 10pm
> (CET) :).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jer
>
>
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/EIS-Bonn/Luzzu/master/luzzu-semantics/src/main/resources/vocabularies/daq/daq.trig
>
> [2]
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diachron/quality/luzzu-integration/src/main/resources/vocabularies/dqm/dqm.trig
>
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2014, at 17:17, Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> Last night I had a conversation with Bernadette on this topic which ended
> up in a nice discussion.
> I'm on the same page with you that I think the Quality vocabulary is
> rather hard to define if we will focus on metrics.
>
> I Hope we have some good amount of time during the F2F to discuss it.
>
> Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
> Bart van Leeuwen
>
> ##############################################################
> # twitter: @semanticfire
> # netage.nl
> # http://netage.nl
> # Enschedepad 76
> # 1324 GJ Almere
> # The Netherlands
> # tel. +31(0)36-5347479
> ##############################################################
>
>
>
> From:        Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> To:        Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
> Date:        29-10-2014 17:07
> Subject:        Data quality and requirements - discussion for F2F?
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> As a preparation to the F2F discussions on vocabularies, I have checked
> the latest version of the UCR document [1]. The progress that has been made
> on describing use cases and identifying requirements is impressive.
> In particular, it is great the categorization of requirements to identify
> requirements most important for our vocabulary work, including the one on
> quality and granularity [2].
>
> Yet, I am still not sure of the scoping of the quality vocabulary. I've
> looked at all requirements, one could say that many could impact the scope
> of a vocabulary to be used to document quality. Some thoughts are on a new
> wiki page [3]. I admittedly played the devil's advocate there, i.e. I was
> very liberal when judging a requirement could impact quality and
> granularity. But in fact when looking at what various UCs have to say about
> quality, I am wondering whether I am the only one confused! I have compiled
> a list of quotes from the UC descriptions [3], which shows that considering
> all contributors, a very wide definition of quality is still on order.
>
> My wish for the F2F discussion would be that the group spend some time
> going through the requirements, and discuss whether they should be in scope
> of the vocabulary.
> Or to put it in other words, decide whether the vocabulary should include
> elements for documenting whether a dataset meet the considered
> requirements, ie., there is metadata for data re-users to understand the
> performance of the dataset against the requirements the group has
> identified.
>
> A reminder, all kind of pointers for the quality work are gathered at [4].
> Including first vocabulary design by Phil.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dwbp-ucr-20141014/
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-for-quality-and-granularity-description-vocabulary
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/UCRs_and_Quality
> [4] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_notes
>
>
>
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
> Click to report as spam. Segnala come spam.
> <http://mailscanner.ge.cnr.it/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=F420F28CEE.DFB6D>
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo Albertoni
Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
Magenes"
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------