Data quality and requirements - discussion for F2F?

Dear all,

As a preparation to the F2F discussions on vocabularies, I have checked the latest version of the UCR document [1]. The progress that has been made on describing use cases and identifying requirements is impressive.
In particular, it is great the categorization of requirements to identify requirements most important for our vocabulary work, including the one on quality and granularity [2].

Yet, I am still not sure of the scoping of the quality vocabulary. I've looked at all requirements, one could say that many could impact the scope of a vocabulary to be used to document quality. Some thoughts are on a new wiki page [3]. I admittedly played the devil's advocate there, i.e. I was very liberal when judging a requirement could impact quality and granularity. But in fact when looking at what various UCs have to say about quality, I am wondering whether I am the only one confused! I have compiled a list of quotes from the UC descriptions [3], which shows that considering all contributors, a very wide definition of quality is still on order.

My wish for the F2F discussion would be that the group spend some time going through the requirements, and discuss whether they should be in scope of the vocabulary.
Or to put it in other words, decide whether the vocabulary should include elements for documenting whether a dataset meet the considered requirements, ie., there is metadata for data re-users to understand the performance of the dataset against the requirements the group has identified.

A reminder, all kind of pointers for the quality work are gathered at [4]. Including first vocabulary design by Phil.

Best regards,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-dwbp-ucr-20141014/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp-ucr/#requirements-for-quality-and-granularity-description-vocabulary
[3] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/UCRs_and_Quality
[4] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_notes

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 16:06:33 UTC