Re: Inconsistent naming of DUV

Andrea,

I like your suggestion (below), but I wonder if the note should be put in a
summary document in terms of contributions from the working group.  I'll
bring this issue forward to the chairs at tomorrow's meeting.

Thanks

Eric S

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.

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Andrea Perego <
andrea.perego@jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote:

> 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.
>