Re: Data quality and requirements - discussion for F2F?

Hi Antoine,

Last night I had a conversation with Bernadette on this topic which ended 
up in a nice discussion.
I'm on the same page with you that I think the Quality vocabulary is 
rather hard to define if we will focus on metrics.

I Hope we have some good amount of time during the F2F to discuss it.

Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen

##############################################################
# twitter: @semanticfire
# netage.nl
# http://netage.nl
# Enschedepad 76
# 1324 GJ Almere
# The Netherlands
# tel. +31(0)36-5347479
##############################################################



From:   Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
To:     Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Date:   29-10-2014 17:07
Subject:        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 16:18:24 UTC