- From: Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:23:44 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: "Debattista, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>, Giancarlo Guizzardi <gguizzardi@gmail.com>, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQUfpUCHwMkV7U1cTnFvWHrQZDHKd76FERZGSVcD3u=2w@mail.gmail.com>
+1 to Antoine and Annette By following the same principle, I guess we should change dqv:QualityMeasureDataset into dqv:QualityMeasurementDataset, don't you think? Cheers, Riccardo On 19 February 2016 at 17:16, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The native speakers have spoken in the call today, including some who have > experience in the realm of measurings/ements/observations [1] > (by the way the minutes do not capture Annette's feedback, and that was > crucial!) > > Their preferences goes to 'measurement', if they have to pick among the > options on this thread. > > So we will replace dqv:QualityMeasure by dqv:QualityMeasurement. Unless > someone who was not on the call raises a strong (and quick) objection! > > @Jeremy, I understand your concern but FWIW I think the sound of having > several measurements for a metric seems alright. Actually to me it sounds > better than having several measures for a metric... > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes > > > On 2/19/16 3:33 PM, Debattista, Jeremy wrote: > >> Hi Antoine, >> >> It depends how it should be perceived. For example, I would go for >> observation rather than measurement. When we measure quality (of a >> particular metric) we are actually creating an observation of that metric >> on a dataset at a particular time. So with the data cube terminology we can >> have multiple observations of 1 particular metric. On the other hand, for >> me it does not sound correct to have multiple “measure”s (or measurements) >> of a particular quality metric. Of course, we can still create multiple >> “measures”, but will it sound right?. In my opinion, an observation >> contains a measure (as analogy to value). >> >> Although both are fine for me, I tend to favour observation. >> >> Cheers, >> Jer >> >> On 19 Feb 2016, at 14:48, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. >>> >>> @Giancarlo, can we consider these papers to be an anser to your >>> action-202 (https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/202)? >>> >>> @Riccardo, in fact I understand that according to ISO 'measure' would be >>> worse than 'measurement', as for them the measure is abstract, and the >>> measurement is concrete, so closer to what we currently call 'measure' in >>> DQV (and what Datacube calls observation). >>> >>> @all: re. coming back to 'observation' for DQV, I now count 2 against, 1 >>> in favour ;-) >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> On 2/19/16 2:28 PM, Giancarlo Guizzardi wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Perhaps the following papers (from our research group) >>>> could be of help: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://nemo.inf.ufes.br/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/a_well_founded_software_measurement_ontology_2010.pdf >>>> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1301/ontocomodise2014_9.pdf >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> Giancarlo >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Riccardo Albertoni < >>>> riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto: >>>> riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I think "QualityMeasure" is the most natural choice for people >>>> coming from the quality domain, who in my opinion are our primary target. >>>> "QualityObservation" might result a little confusing for people who are not >>>> aware of RDFCube terminology. >>>> I am almost sure to remember that we decided to rename >>>> daq:Observation in DQV:QualityMeasure for the above reasons. >>>> I find interesting that ISO seems to use the term "measurement" >>>> for the action, and "measure" for the result of the action, >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> 4.5 data quality measure >>>> variable to which a value is assigned as the result of measurement >>>> of a data quality characteristic >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> >>>> That might be a sort of answer to the "measurement vs measure" >>>> doubt, I suspect the two words are almost interchangeable, as the merriam >>>> webster seems to suggest in [1] and [2], but here I would leave the >>>> last word to the native speakers .... >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Riccardo >>>> [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/measurement >>>> [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/measure >>>> >>>> On 19 February 2016 at 11:49, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya < >>>> nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Antoine, >>>> >>>> If it helps, "quality measure" is defined in ISO/IEC 25012 [1] >>>> as >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> 4.5 data quality measure >>>> variable to which a value is assigned as the result of >>>> measurement of a data quality characteristic >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> which is based on ISO/IEC 15939:2007 [2] >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> 2.15 >>>> measure, noun >>>> variable to which a value is assigned as the result of >>>> measurement >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> However, I agree that it might not have the same meaning in the >>>> Data Cube. Personally I am ok with renaming QualityMeasure as >>>> QualityObservation if we want to align it more with it's parent class from >>>> the Data Cube. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Nandana >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:25012:ed-1:v1:en >>>> [2] >>>> https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:15939:ed-2:v2:en >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Antoine Isaac < >>>> aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Related to ongoing discussions on DQV terminology, I have >>>> now a doubt on how we use the word 'measure'. >>>> >>>> In the spec, dqv:QualityMeasure is a sub-class of >>>> (Datacube) qb:Observation [1] and an instance of dqv:QualityMeasure can be >>>> interpreted as the result of an action (of observing). >>>> >>>> But I'm not sure this is really in line with the Datacube >>>> notions. In the definitions at [2] (especially in section 6) 'measures' are >>>> rather conceptual. Actually they may sit rather at the level of what we >>>> call 'metric' than at the level of thecurrent dqv:QualityMeasure. >>>> >>>> I am also wondering whether some of us (especially me) may >>>> be biased because in our native languages, the noun 'measure' (not the >>>> verb!) may have a wider acception than in English. For example in French >>>> the noun 'mesure' can mean both the metric (in a mathematical sense) and >>>> the result of the action of measuring. Maybe English speakers would rather >>>> call the latter a 'measurement', (even though the boundaries for this noun >>>> are also not very clear in English either). >>>> >>>> What do the native English speakers in the group think? >>>> >>>> If there's general agreement that 'measure' is too >>>> confusing, then I'd suggest we replace QualityMeasure by QualityMeasurement >>>> or QualityObservation. >>>> >>>> The problem is that the 'noun' observation will also be >>>> confusing for people outside the DataCube context. If I was not a bit >>>> familiar with Datacube, I'd think that dqv:QualityObservation could be a >>>> superclass of other classes in DQV like dqv:UserQualityFeedback [1]... >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#dqv:QualityMeasure >>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content >>>> by >>>> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed >>>> to be clean. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Riccardo Albertoni >>>> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche >>>> "Enrico Magenes" >>>> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche >>>> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA >>>> tel. +39-010-6475624 <tel:%2B39-010-6475624> - fax +39-010-6475660 >>>> <tel:%2B39-010-6475660> >>>> e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto: >>>> Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> >>>> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ >>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni >>>> www: http://www.imati.cnr.it/ <http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni >>>> > >>>> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni >>>> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- > 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 Magenes" 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.imati.cnr.it/ <http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 16:24:15 UTC