W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > December 2015

Re: issue-202: asserting the dataset's metadata conforms to certain standards

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 00:35:13 +0100
Message-ID: <5660D1B1.8060804@few.vu.nl>
To: DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Riccardo, all,

OK, I've added the example in a new section as as you suggested, and following the pattern we agreed on.

About doing something for the fact that what we are describing here is quality of metadata:
Yes, I think it's in DQV's scope.
But I'm not sure it's wise to add dcat:CatalogRecord besides dcat:Dataset/ dcat:Distribution at [1].
The reason for this is that after we do it, we'll probably find out that there are other types of metadata than catalogue records. Especially about conformance: every data sources can be said to be (non-)conformant to something.

So I'd be tempted to add a brief note somewhere that the dcat:Dataset/ dcat:Distribution node in [1] is indicative, not normative, as we know that the properties could be applied to other types of resources than the ones we mention.

Or we could just keep the node normative, and then consider that every piece of data described with DQV, even dcat:CatalogRecord, can be considered a dcat:Dataset or dcat:Distribution.
I didn't find any disjointness axiom in the DCAT ontology [2], which would disallow this.
Would this be ok for people?

Cheers,

Antoine

[2] http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat.rdf

On 11/30/15 5:50 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> +1 to  follow patterns that have been already established ;)
>
>   The solution proposed by Antoine and supported by DCAT-AP and GeoDCAT-AP  might be  included as example in the DQV document, as  a  new sub-section of "Example Usage" which we might title,
> "Express that dataset's metadata is  compliant to a  metadata standard / application profile"
> Does this make sense?
>
> A further consideration:
> here we are discussing  a statement about the quality of metadata, not about the quality of the dataset.  That makes me wonder if   we need to include in the DQV's scope  other kind of statements pertaining to the quality for metadata, for example,  to state  the results ofmetrics on  metadata quality.
>
> If  we  consider a full-fledge  metadata quality in  the DQV's scope, I would suggest to make it  explicit, for example, by adding dcat:CatalogRecord besides dcat:Dataset/ dcat:Distribution in the top orange block you find DQV concept Diagram [1].
> What do you think?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Riccardo
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/images/Data%20Quality%200.2.6.svg
>
> On 27 November 2015 at 15:22, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Andrea,
>
>     Thanks a lot for pointing this!
>     With the amount of work (and review) that's already gone into DCAT-AP and GeoDCAT-AP, I'd suggest we follow the pattern without questioning it - especially if some of us already prefered it ;-)
>
>     Best,
>
>     Antoine
>
>
>     On 11/27/15 1:53 PM, Andrea Perego wrote:
>
>         Dear WG,
>
>         Apologies for jumping in your discussion. but since your use case is
>         about GeoDCAT-AP, I thought it was relevant to mention that DCAT-AP
>         (and therefore also GeoDCAT-AP) supports the possibility of specifying
>         the metadata standard / application profile), using exactly the
>         solution proposed by Antoine - i.e.:
>
>         my:CatalogRecord a dcat:CatalogRecord ;
>             foaf:primaryTopic my:Dataset ;
>             dct:conformsTo <metadata standard / application profile> .
>
>         Best,
>
>         Andrea
>
>
>         On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Riccardo,
>
>             Sorry for the late response. I hope someone would chime in, to approve or
>             object...
>
>             The way to represent standards themselves, the example for :geoDCAT-AP seems
>             fine (maybe others will have some more input on this).
>
>             What puzzle me is the property dqv:hasMetadataConformingTo
>             It does do the job, but it's quite an indirect statement to attach to a
>             dataset. I mean, what is conformant with GeoDCAT-AP is the metadata, not the
>             dataset itself.
>             It could be that in another databse, the dataset description wouldn't be
>             conformant.
>
>             Of course if the requirement is to indicate something like "somewhere the
>             dataset has a description that complies with GeoDCAT-AP", then
>             dqv:hasMetadataConformingTo is ok.
>             But I'm feeling this could be only a near-match to a data consumer need. I
>             mean, I think they should get this information only when looking at a
>             specific piece of metadata that represents the dataset, not "in general".
>             Actually the proposal could be harmful if a data consumers happen to have
>             metadata that don't conform to GeoDCAT-AP
>
>             So before we make a decision I think we should at least have a look at the
>             existing mechanism in DCAT for metadata (catalogues)
>             http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#class-catalog-record
>
>
>             If I understand it well it would be something like
>
>             :mydataset a dcat:Dataset;
>
>             :mydatasetRecordInCatalogueX a dcat:DatasetRecord;
>                foaf:primaryTopic :myDataset
>                dcterms:conformsTo :geoDCATAP.
>
>             This somehow assumes that there is a definition of the catalogue X as a
>             dcat:Catalogue somewhere.
>             This is rather more complex, but as already hinted, I believe the original
>             requirement makes sense if the data consumer looks at a specific piece of
>             metadata, that's likely to be provided by a concrete dataset catalogue.
>
>             The solution has also the benefit that we don't have to sub-property
>             dcterms:conformsTo with a new DQV property :-)
>
>             Cheers,
>
>             Antoine
>
>
>             On 11/13/15 6:50 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
>
>
>                 Dear All,
>
>                 This mail follows  today's group call and the discussion on the use cases
>                 DQV should  cover when dealing with "the compliancy of a dataset to a
>                 standard". (issue-202 [1])
>
>                     Phil and Hadley suggested that the DQV should  express  assertions like
>                 "this dataset's metadata is conforming to a certain standards",
>                 and specifically to model this,  we discussed to add
>                 dqv:hasMetadataConformingTo as  a new  subproperty of   dcterms:conformsTo.
>
>                 For example, DQV could  model the assertion
>                 " mydataset's metadata conforms geoDCAT-AP".
>                 with
>                 :mydataset a dcat:Dataset;
>                     dqv:hasMetadataConformingTo  :geoDCATAP.
>                 :geoDCATAP a dct:Standard;
>                      dct:title "GeoDCAT Application Profile developed in the context of the
>                 Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA)
>                 Programme"@en;
>                      dct:issued "201X-XX-XX"^^xsd:date.
>
>                     I'd like to thank Phil and Hadley for suggesting this new requirement.
>
>                 Is there any objection in adding this new kind of assertion in DQV
>                 expressivity?
>                 Do you have any comments or refinements on the modeling example?
>
>                 Have a good weekend!
>                 Riccardo
>
>                 [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/202
>
>
>                 --
>
>                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 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 <tel:%2B39-010-6475624> - fax +39-010-6475660 <tel:%2B39-010-6475660>
>                 e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
>                 <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 <mailto: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
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2015 23:35:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 December 2015 23:35:48 UTC