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

Re: dwbp-ISSUE-200: Can we align the quality dimension hints in DQV with the ones in ISO 25012? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary]

From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:39:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQNx-jQjzpbiAf=XHVg8w+oFk1dW6PxFCCfGJynuOQjOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Nandana,

Thanks for the very  valuable input.

At least two quality dimension classifications can be considered when
providing examples  in section 7

   - Dimensions defined in ISO 25012 http
   <http://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25012>, you
   have mentioned;
   - Dimensions collected in the "Quality Assessment for Linked Data: A

I tend to think we should cite both and let the DQV adopters to select the
one which best fits their needs.

In my opinion section 7 [1], "Dimensions”, should  offer a  categorisation
of quality dimensions, which is not intended to be normative: It can't be,
we actually want that  quality framework emerging in the future can define
their quality dimensions and categories as they need. As you know,  there
is a lot of  people  which work on  quality and we don't want to close the
door to  new measures which  are likely to be defined in the future.

 At the same time, I agree on  providing  examples of  categorisation for
dimensions which can  provide  guidance for those  who don’t need to define
their own dimension / categories.

So my proposal is to align the current  DQV  classifications with the ISO,
but also citing the classification from zaveri et al as a possible
classification to be adopted.

How the group feels about this proposal?

I guess that some sort of mapping between the two classifications would be
helpful, but   I am neither  sure  that mapping can be  easy  found nor it
is in the scope of our work. Perhaps we should ask to externals ( and
 Zaveri, Maurino & Co in particular )  if anyone has already defined such a

Best regards,


On 25 September 2015 at 17:52, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group
Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> dwbp-ISSUE-200: Can we align the quality dimension hints in DQV with the
> ones in  ISO 25012? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary]
> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/200
> Raised by: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya
> On product: Quality & Granularity Vocabulary
> When looking at the quality dimension hints in DQV and ISO 25012 (SQuaRE -
> Data quality model), there is a big overlap. I did an initial comparison
> and all except for relevance and statistics fit in.
> Comparison of DQV and ISO 25012 dimensions
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VMe--lhbiRGvQW1eWsYhUW2TeUBVxR3hzNskIPtSZoM/edit#gid=0
> ISO 25012 provides definitions for each dimension developed by the TC. It
> will good to refer to them whenever possible and define new ones only when
> it's necessary.
> Some terms have to be unified such as
> 1. Currentness, Timeliness
> 2. Compliance, Conformance
> --
> 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
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
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 10:40:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 5 October 2015 10:40:21 UTC