- From: Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:44:24 +0300
- To: <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
In the Multisensor project we have some quality ratings of content items. These items are called "SIMMO" and have GUID URLs like ms-content:b3f35 (the actual URL is much longer). The ratings are: low, medium, high, curated (highest). Obviously, these are NOMINAL values, not numbers. I'd like to express them as dqv:QualityMeasurement (more direct), not as dqv:QualityAnnotation. I did something like this: ms:accuracy a dqv:Metric; skos:prefLabel "Accuracy"@en; skos:definition "Degree to which SIMMO data correctly represents real world facts."@en; dqv:inDimension ldqd:semanticAccuracy; dqv:expectedDataType ms:Accuracy. ms:Accuracy a owl:Class, skos:ConceptScheme; rdfs:label "Accuracy values"@en. ms:accuracy-low a ms:Accuracy, skos:Concept; skos:inScheme ms:Accuracy; skos:prefLabel "Low accuracy"@en. ms:accuracy-medium a ms:Accuracy, skos:Concept; skos:inScheme ms:Accuracy; skos:prefLabel "Medium accuracy"@en. ms:accuracy-high a ms:Accuracy, skos:Concept; skos:inScheme ms:Accuracy; skos:prefLabel "High accuracy"@en. ms:accuracy-curated a ms:Accuracy, skos:Concept; skos:inScheme ms:Accuracy; skos:prefLabel "Manually curated"@en; skos:note "Highest accuracy"@en. ms-content:b3f35 dqv:hasQualityMeasurement ms-content:b3f35-quality. ms-content:b3f35-quality a dqv:QualityMeasurement ; dqv:isMeasurementOf ms:accuracy; dqv:value ms:accuracy-curated. Problems/questions: 1. dqv:expectedDataType rdfs:range xsd:anySimpleType, and as its name suggests, it's supposed to point to a literal not resource. But a nominal value is a resource. 2. I've "collapsed" owl:Class and skos:ConceptScheme in the sense that: -- ms:Accuracy is both owl:Class and skos:ConceptScheme -- ms:accuracy-low is both ms:Accuracy and skos:Concept, i.e. has two links to ms:Accuracy: rdf:type and skos:inScheme. The reason I did it is because it's most natural to model nominal values in SKOS; but on the other hand dqv:expectedDataType wants a specific type. I think this pattern is not flawed, I think I've seen it for SDMX values. I think that 1 is a problem in the ontology. 2 is a question of modeling best practice. Can someone help with the above? Do you think using nominal values is a significant use case, and thus merits a place in the DQV spec? Thanks in advance!
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 10:44:47 UTC