W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Inconsistent naming of DUV

From: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:07:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMFz4jjQT7TXo7BB73WQmpdnw=TFcpYtA0Ry+Yb13NBuQntoTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Cc: W3C DWBP WG - Comments <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>

Apologies for missing your note.  Thank you Riccardo for calling this to
our attention.

First thank you for your comments and pointing out the inconsistency of the
use of "Dataset Usage Vocabulary" and "Data Usage Vocabulary" in the DUV
document.  Because we are nearing the end of our working group, I think we
need to retain Dataset Usage Vocabulary although I entirely understand the
reason for your question.

In one of our early F2F meetings in Austin Texas we settled upon "Dataset
Usage Vocabulary", at the time we chose build around the DCAT vocabulary
and constrain usage to DCAT:Dataset and DCAT:Distribution.  The thinking at
the time was that the term data was too vague when it came to providing
feedback, citing, or usage.  For instance questions were raised that unless
some constraints were put into place how do you cite "data".   There are
arguments that can be made about identifying data as a subset using dataset
or distribution.  We chose to think of the constituents of a dataset
refined down to the level of distribution.

While I am not on the Data Quality Vocabulary team, I do understand that in
the context of describing quality you want to be able to have a whole range
of flexibility assessing the characteristics of an entire dataset down to
the level of a scalar value.

Having said all this I open to suggestions to help make our text clearer
describing our approach.

Does this make sense?

Eric S.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Andrea Perego <
andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote:

> Dear DWBP WG,
> I don't know if this issue has already been reported or discussed, but I
> noticed that DUV is referred to inconsistently in both the DUV and the DQV
> specifications (actually, I haven't checked the other DWBP specifications).
> More precisely, although the "official" name of DUV is "dataset usage
> Vocabulary", sometimes it is cited as "data usage vocabulary".
> I take this opportunity also to raise a question on the choice behind the
> official name of DUV - i.e., whether there's a reason for using "dataset
> usage" instead of "data usage". Personally, I think that it may be
> misleading, also because DQV = "*data* quality vocabulary". As far as I can
> see, their scope is not different - they're both about *data*. So why call
> them differently?
> Thanks in advance
> Andrea
> --
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
> European Commission DG JRC
> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
> ----
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
> position of the European Commission.
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 14:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:14 UTC