W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: How To Do Deal with the Subjective Issue of Data Quality?

From: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:06:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9E0B33.4000806@gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" <dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>
Hi,
I think the different aspects of data quality should be specified by
parties who are interested in them, published using proper ontologies
and new human terms, and the ambiguous term "data quality" be used less
and less. You quite hit the nail on the head with the recognition of the
aesthetic nature of the term.

Individual campaigns like some 5-star schemes are not necessarily bad,
if they recognize their specificity to a particular purpose.
Although I prefer a certificate-compliance-like scheme to the star
scheme which kind of supports the (false) notion of the objective data
quality.

Best,
Jiri

On 04/07/2011 08:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> All,
> 
> Apologies for cross posting this repeatedly. I think I have a typo free
> heading for this topic.
> 
> Increasingly, the issue of data quality pops up as an impediment to
> Linked Data value proposition comprehension and eventual exploitation.
> The same issue even appears to emerge in conversations that relate to
> "sense making" endeavors that benefit from things such as OWL reasoning
> e.g., when resolving the multiple Identifiers with a common Referent via
> owl:sameAs or exploitation of fuzzy rules based on
> InverseFunctionProperty relations.
> 
> Personally, I subscribe to the doctrine that "data quality" is like
> "beauty" it lies strictly in the eyes of the beholder i.e., a function
> of said beholders "context lenses".
> 
> I am posting primarily to open up a discussion thread for this important
> topic.
> 


Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 19:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:32 UTC