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

Re: Inconsistent naming of DUV

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 10:30:34 +0100
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C DWBP WG - Comments <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Message-id: <b27472fc-aca6-ea73-dbd9-eb85426ff809@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Dear Eric,

Many thanks for explaining the background for the naming of DUV.

About the vocabulary scope, I understand that both DUV and DQV are 
aligned, since they are built around the notions of dataset and 
distribution. On the other hand, I haven't found in the two vocabularies 
domain / range restrictions formally preventing their use with single 
data items or other types of resources. Which, IMHO, is a good thing, 
since it leaves them open to be used in scenarios that may have not 
emerged during the design of these vocabularies.

I still think that the different naming of DQV and DUV may be 
misleading, but I also understand that the name cannot be changed at 
this stage. Maybe this can be addressed by adding a brief note - which 
could also be used to clarify the relationship between DUV and DQV, and 
how they complement each other.

Cheers,

Andrea


On 15/11/2016 15:07, Eric Stephan wrote:
> Andrea,
>
> 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 <mailto: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.
>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 21 November 2016 09:30:56 UTC

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