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: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:29:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAOEr1nwCb1XH2BZ+Pp6wpO6-PJkA6f_xpoNVh7KVcdPbz5asg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Cc: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear Riccardo,

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Riccardo Albertoni <
albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Yes. I totally agree. IMO, we should make it clear in the document that the
purpose of providing these dimensions is to make it easier for readers who
don't want to define the dimensions by their own rather than restricting
them only to use the ones in defined in DQV and say that one can use DQV as
a framework for defining their own dimensions and metrics.

+1 to the proposal of citing other possible categorizations such as the one
from Zaveri et al.

Best Regards,
Nandana
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 12:30:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 5 October 2015 12:30:11 UTC