Re: Data quality and requirements - discussion for F2F?

Hi Bart, Antoine

I agree with both of you that defining a vocabulary based on metrics is hard. From my work on data quality, I realised that different domains, use cases etc might require different metrics. Of course, there are those metrics that would be suitable for most of the use cases. What I found useful was to define how quality metadata should be represented at an abstract level [1]. Then based on this abstract ontology, we defined a number of quality metrics [2], some of which might be similar to those extracted from the DWBP use cases. On the whole, my opinion is that we have to provide a pragmatic solution that would be suitable for everyone within the community, i.e. in the future other interested parties should be able to define quality metrics that can be easily interoperable with other defined quality metrics.

I would gladly join the F2F discussion remotely, if it won’t be after 10pm (CET) :).

Cheers,
Jer


[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/EIS-Bonn/Luzzu/master/luzzu-semantics/src/main/resources/vocabularies/daq/daq.trig
[2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diachron/quality/luzzu-integration/src/main/resources/vocabularies/dqm/dqm.trig

On 29 Oct 2014, at 17:17, Bart van Leeuwen <bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl<mailto:bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl>> wrote:

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



From:        Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>
To:        Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org<mailto: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