- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:39:09 +0200
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy, Thanks a lot for the contribution! Right now we're still at discussion stage, I'm afraid. As we discussed yesterday, I like very much your idea of using a generic metrics framework (like daQ) to express the quality dimensions that are important for us, as per our use cases and requirements. Of course this assumes that we will identify the dimensions, and appropriate metrics to evaluate datasets against them. Right now we're not there. I have a question though: is there any existing daQ instantiation to measure 'general quality' of datasets, that we could have a look at? Something like what is presented in Figure 2 of your paper, but a more systematic... Best regards, Antoine On 7/10/14 6:58 PM, Debattista, Jeremy wrote: >> Hi Antoine, >> >> I hope this email finds you well. I would like to inform you that we have extended our daQ ontology with the Data Cube vocabulary so that we could now represent “observations” on quality. We have a paper about this accepted at the main conference at semantics[1]. I’ve attached the paper for you, but probably I will do some minor changes for the camera-ready version. >> >> >From what I’ve understood till now, the efforts the WG is doing is different from the scope of daQ. The daQ is a generic framework allowing (1) the uniform representation of metrics; (2) suggests how quality metadata is represented. On the other hand, the WG would like to identify those domain-independent quality metrics which each Linked Dataset can be measured to. Thus, the definition of these metrics will be defined in an ontology (such as DCAT). >> During the last call, you mentioned something about the work I am doing. The daQ can support the definition of these quality metrics (say in the DCAT vocab) by having the definition of these metrics extending daQ. We are already defining a number of specific metrics in an ontology for the EU project I am working on [2] (this is also explained in the attached paper). >> >> Also, I am wondering how I can contribute to this ontology - maybe there are some specific tasks I could do? or is it just discussions for the moment? >> >> Best Regards, >> Jeremy >> >> >> [1] http://www.semantics.cc >> [2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diachron/quality/master/src/main/resources/vocabularies/dqm/dqm.trig >> >> >
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 15:39:38 UTC