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

Re: DQV Comments

From: Steven Adler <adler1@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:24:16 -0400
To: Laufer <laufer@globo.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEF0A6E89.CEE2BFCD-ON85257E65.00646D8C-85257E65.0065199D@us.ibm.com>

Just reading through the DQV and apologize if my comments are uninformed.
>From my experience with Data Quality, one can make objective observations
about Data Quality based on the age of the data, in which one assigns
various decay factors and calculates age(decay factor), it's completeness
in which a percentage can be applied.  One can also apply subjective
assessments by comparing one data set to other sources.  One can even
assert that data without comparative sources can't be trusted - no unbribed
journalist would ever publics a story without corroborated sources...

But when I read the DQV I don't really get these points and the whole thing
feels very abstract.  Am I reading it wrong?


Best Regards,

Steve

Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"


|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Laufer <laufer@globo.com>                                                                                                                         |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>                                                                                                                  |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>                                                                                                   |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |06/11/2015 09:26 PM                                                                                                                               |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Re: DQV Comments                                                                                                                                  |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





Hi Antoine,

Ok. I think is good to have a self-contained document.

Best,
Laufer

Em quinta-feira, 11 de junho de 2015, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
escreveu:
  Hi Laufer,

  Thanks for the comment!

  We've just followed existing practice in DCAT. Ie. DCAT re-uses the
  skos:Concept class, and still "re-defines" it in the DCAT reference doc
  [1].
  I guess other 'vocabulary documentation schools' would not reproduce the
  external info. But I do like the idea of having a self-contained
  document, at least as long as the effort is not huge.

  And in the case of DQV and DAQ there's another point: as pointed
  explicitly (as an ISSUE) in the DQV draft, we may end up have to
  re-declare the DAQ constructs as DQV (or even DCAT) ones, later. In that
  case it will have been a smart move to have the doc self-contained,
  earlier than later.

  Kind regards,

  Antoine

  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#class-concept

  On 6/11/15 8:01 PM, Laufer wrote:
   Hi, Antoine, Christophe, Riccardo,

   First of all, thank your for your efforts in DQV.

   I have a question about the DQV Data model  (Fig.1):

   Considering that dqv:QualityMeasure is a subclass of daq:Observation,
   and that
   the relations beetwen daq:Observation, qb:Observation, daqMetric,
   daq:Dimension, daq:Category are defined in
   http://purl.org/eis/vocab/daq#,
   it is necessary to have qb:Observation, daqMetric, daq:Dimension,
   daq:Category explicitly defined in DQV Data Model?

   Thank you.

   Best Regards,
   Laufer

   --
   .  .  .  .. .  .
   .        .   . ..
   .     ..       .



--
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .





graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Monday, 15 June 2015 18:25:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 15 June 2015 18:25:10 UTC