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

Re: data quality vocabulary - dimensions

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 00:11:43 +0200
Message-ID: <556E2A1F.1020009@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Annette,

On 5/29/15 8:49 AM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> I think that the accuracy/consistency/relevance metric needs to be broken up into separate items. A dataset could rank well in one of those three and also rank poorly in another; they are pretty orthogonal. In particular, I think relevance can't be a ranking but rather a statement of who the data is relevant for. In that respect, it may not really be a measure of quality.
>


Thanks for the comment!

It came from the minutes of the Share-PSI workshop [1], where it was said:
[
Q: (Lorenzo) consistency could be inside accuracy
A: (Makx) this might depend on context, there is some overlap.
]
[
a cluster including accuracy, consistency and relevance
]

Relevance may also be defined as a metrics. For example I expect coverage of a list of topics/places in a dataset could be defined in terms of percentage of a reference list of places.

Anyway, I agree lumping them seems a bit premature. So I've splitted them.



> I see consistency as crucial. That is really what I want as a user of data. What I want to know is, can I use it readily in an analysis tool? Can I open the dataset in R and do some statistical manipulations? Can I open it in Tableau and make a visualization without doing a lot of cleaning?
>


These questions go in the draft, as I don't want to lose them :)

The rest will go in another email....

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2013/share-psi/wiki/Timisoara/Scribe#Tuesday_17th_March_.2811:30_-_12:40_Parallel_Sessions_B.29
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 22:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 2 June 2015 22:12:13 UTC