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

Fwd: New dqv:inDimension

From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:40:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmS2eFADqvBAE987ZyejEt7DU2pojwwXNt_a1qriRp_Z_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Forwarding Jeremy's email to the mailing list, so that we have this mail
related to action https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/258
Cheers, Riccardo
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Debattista, Jeremy <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>
Date: 22 March 2016 at 13:57
Subject: Re: New dqv:inDimension
To: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Cc: DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>


Hi Riccardo,

In fact,  as a consequence of the inDimension domain removal, the foaf
profile you have mentioned  is not  becoming a metric,  If someone wants
 it  as a  metric,  she/he must instantiate  it as dqv:Metric ..


In your reply, you implied that the inDimension property will still have
the dqv:Metric concept as its domain.

If you are using inDimension alone you are basically saying "I have
something which might be connected to a quality dimension",  that's it ..


That is pretty big assumption which would make the quality metadata largely
subject to different interpretations. Not sure that quality metadata (which
should be of high quality) will benefit from that.


I think inDimension domain should be restricted, and future quality stuff,
> should adhere to that restriction. Otherwise if we allow anyone to do
> anything in the DQV I’m afraid that we will end up with low quality,
> quality metadata.
>

It is not that anyone can do anything, when the stuff about quality is of
one the foreseen types ( annotations, metrics, quality policies,
standards), our  DQV document explains how it should be made fitting  ;)


Theoretically, yes. Anyone can do anything with an open domain. This is
said with the same reasoning that lightweight vocabularies (like daQ)
cannot put constraints on for example the fact a metric exists in one and
only one dimension, even though the document explains it.

Therefore, considering all these points, I vote against having an open
domain for the inDimension property, and I urge you to really reconsider
this design.

Cheers,
Jer



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.imati.cnr.it/>*
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Friday, 25 March 2016 14:40:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 25 March 2016 14:40:31 UTC