- From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 14:27:13 +0200
- To: Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>
- Cc: public-dwbp-comments <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Dear Vladimir, Again thanks for your useful feedbacks. see my inline reply after your comments. On 6 July 2016 at 17:47, Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com> wrote: > The document https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/ refers throughout to > dimensions and categories such as: > > :availability a dqv:Dimension; dqv:inCategory :accessibility. > :completeness a dqv:Dimension; dqv:inCategory :intrinsicDimensions. > please keep in mind that dimensions and metrics in dqv are meant to be suggestions and they should not be considered "normative", as explained in our in-progress DQV document, section 6 [1], which I am quoting below: "The goal of the Data Quality Vocabulary is not to define a normative list of dimensions and metrics. There are already several reference classifications available, which are the result of a lot of community work. Unifying them here seems both hard and not desirable, as fundamental approaches to quality vary between domains or even applications. This section provides instead a set of examples, starting from use cases included in the Use Cases & Requirements document. In particular, we offer the quality dimension proposed in ISO 25012 [ISOIEC25012] and Zaveri et al. [ZaveriEtAl] as two starting points. Ultimately, implementers will need to choose themselves the approach that fits best their needs. They can extend on these starting points, creating their own refinements of categories and dimensions, and of course their own metrics. They can mix existing approaches — we show that the proposals from ISO and Zaveri et al. are not completely disjoint. Implementers can also adopt completely different classifications, if existing ones do not fit their specific application scenarios. They should however be aware that relying on existing classifications and metrics increases interoperability, i.e., the chance that human and machine agents can properly understand and exploit their quality assessments." Said that, to make DQV early adopters' life easier we have provided a turtle [2] for dimensions and categories defined by Zaveri et al. In the next version of this turtle, we will probably add a proper skos:ConceptScheme. > Also, example 5.10 Express the quality of a linkset says > "Copying the structure of daq:dsq" > and then shows stuff like this, including components that refer to standard > DQV properties > > ... a qb:DataStructureDefinition > qb:component [ qb:dimension dqv:computedOn ; qb:order 2] ; > qb:component [ qb:measure dqv:value] ; > > When can be expected that Turtle files will appear including: > - the definitions of common dimensions and categories, > - as well as the CUBE DSD for the standard DQV properties? > (I guess this could come through copying from DAQ, which I've read briefly > about) We are not providing a CUBE DSD, as the DSD might be application-dependent. In the latest in progress draft , we've added a proper appendix to explain how DSD can be defined. It is up to the adopter deciding the DSD which best fits his application. Please take a look at the appendix [3]. Cheers, Riccardo [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#DimentsionsMetricsHints [2]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ldqd [3] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#Compatibility_with_RDF_Data_Cube -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 12:27:45 UTC