W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: some thoughts on https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/222

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 22:06:14 +0100
Message-ID: <56DC9BC6.6080802@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Riccardo,

I think this is progressing in the right direction.
I think Annette's earlier comment about #222 also hints that min, max etc shouldn't be merged with the basic observations.

So having derivation and other links between Metrics seems the way to go.
I'm going to ask Werner whether he can live with this.

I am just a bit unsure about using the Quality Model namespace. Properties like 'collaboratesWith' sound really strange and not so mature. Maybe we'll want to check more mature namespaces like PROV, which has for example prov:wasInfluenceBy:



On 2/17/16 5:32 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> Dear all,
> I would like to share some thoughts on https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/222
> This issue seems to be related to  different intertwined requirements,
> req-A - the  need of indicating multivalue for a metric
> req-B - the need of relating measures that are derived
> Concerning req-A,   daq/dqv:value is a property of daq:QualityObservation/DQV:QualityMeasure which  has  exactly 1 rdfs:Literal
> so we cannot indicate for a metric more than a value..
> However, As mentioned by Werner, req-A is not a big issue as it can be overcame by  split the multiple values in multiple metrics  provided that you have a way to relate distinct metrics.
> req-A sounds to me  a problem similar to the Multiple-measure observation v.s. measure dimension, which is  discussed in the RDF cube section about "handling multiple measure" [1].  We are basically coherent with the  "measure dimension".
> So at the end, we have already a way to support multi-value measure in DQV/DAQ, so I would not bother too much about req-A  and, I'll try to close  issue-222 simply  by  facing the req-B.
>   let's focus  on req-B,
> Relations  such as collaboratesWith, dependsOn, isUsedToObtain which are  specified for the class http://vocab.linkeddata.es/qmo/index.html#QualityMeasure seem to offer a good start  for our discussion.
> (a side comment: we might have an extra reason for taking inspiration from EVAL,
> EVAL is an ontology   defined by Filip Radulovic, who is also a member of this group.)
> Example:
> Assuming X, a metric  returns /is composed by values Y1 Y2 Y3, we have to define the  metrics X1 X2 X3,  and then state the relation among metrics,
> e.g. if  Y1 is an aggregated value  obtained by Y2 and Y3, we can  express that stating
> X1 dependsOn X2, X3
> X2, X3 are usedToObtain X1
> Is that enough?
> Do we need other  properties among metrics?
> Cheers,
> Riccardo
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#dsd-mm
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
> www: http://www.imati.cnr.it/
> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2016 21:06:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 6 March 2016 21:06:50 UTC