Re: New DQV editor's draft

Hi Antoine, Christophe, Riccardo,

This looks great already. It seems to be comprehensive  and not much to add. I would like to point out two issues which are not clear to me as yet:

1) In the diagram, shouldn't the dcat:Dataset be "outside" of the quality metadata (and especially outside of the QualityGraph containment), and then the dcat:Dataset points to the quality metadata graph?  

I don't know if this was done on purpose there or should have been placed outside. If a dcat:Dataset (or distribution) is inside the quality metadata boundaries, then my understanding as a consumer (I might be a machine) would be that a dcat:Dataset instance is some kind of quality information.

2) How about doing dqv:QualityMetadata as a subclass of daq:QualityGraph?

There are a number of advantages of doing so. First of all we don't have to rely on multiple graphs. Although nothing is wrong with that, this might make querying a bit harder. The daq:QualityGraph is a specialisation of the rdf:Graph which is also a qb:Dataset. In this case the qb:dataset property can have dqv:QualityMeasure as domain and dqv:QualityMetadata as its range. This way we can move dcat:Dataset from the graph containment, and removing the property "dqv:hasQualityMeasure" (this becomes redundant as it can be inferred, if there is some link between dcat:Dataset and dqv:QualityMetadata).

Once we have a first draft of the RDF schema, I will be happy to support it in our Quality Assessment Framework.

Cheers,
Jeremy

On 20 May 2015, at 23:39, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> We've created a new editor's draft of the Data Quality Vocabulary on Github [1].
> 
> Most of it is in the diagram in section 3. We have placeholder for material in other sections, but this is still work in progress.
> 
> As you can see the diagram and the doc still have a lot of open issues and questions. But we believe it's a positive evolution from the previous version [2]. The patterns that we would like to use are stabilizing
> Actually I'm curious to see how much of Jeremy's last comments [3] would still apply!
> 
> Needless to say, everyone else's feedback is highly welcome!
> 
> Please excuse the discussion notes in the diagram itself. We thought of creating a wiki page as we had done previously [2]. But I lacked the time to do it. Maybe in the coming days, depending on how the discussion evolves...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine, on behalf of co-editors Riccardo and Christophe
> 
> [1]  http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html
> [2]  https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_Quality_Vocabulary_%28DQV%29
> [3]  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015May/0037.html
>

Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 08:46:02 UTC