Re: Data Q&G vocabulary - report and questions for F2F

Hi Antoine, all,

I think there is extensive literature on the different data quality
characteristics that may be useful here as well.
Some examples are:

- Data quality under the computer science perspective
http://www.academia.edu/2746633/Data_quality_under_the_computer_science_perspective

- Data quality at a glance
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.106.8628&rep=rep1&type=pdf

- A metrics-driven approach for quality assessment of LOD
http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v9n2/art06.pdf

- Socio-technical impediments of Open Data
http://www.ejeg.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=255

- Risk Analysis to Overcome Barriers to Open Data
http://www.ejeg.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=296

- Quality Assessment Methodologies for Linked Open Data
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj414.pdf

As well as other authoritative resources we may consider as well such as:

- The Sebastopol principles
https://public.resource.org/8_principles.html

- ISO 8000 Data quality series.

-- ISO 25012 Data quality model.

Hope it helps.
 Best,
 CI.

On 3 April 2015 at 18:42, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> One week has passed since our previous report. The same situation is
> roughly the same. Since there was no reaction to my previous email I'm
> trying a different format.
>
> We analyzed Q&G aspects in the Use Cases and Requirements FPWD:
> - assessing which requirements should be in scope for the Q&G work [1]
> - extracting the relevant Q&G stuff from the descriptions of Use Cases [2]
>
> The outcome is that use cases have very diverse views on quality. There
> are two main issues for scoping the voc:
>
> 1. Focusing on expressing metrics for data quality
> VS.
> Also expressing compliance of dataset wrt Best practices. from our BP WD.
>
> 2. Focusing on a general framework to express metrics for data quality and
> exchange results along specific quality dimensions
> VS.
> Defining specific metrics with such framework.
>
>
> Meanwhile, we have started extracting requirements from the best practices
> [3]
>
> This includes identifying 'competency questions' guiding us to add classes
> and properties in the voc.
>
> In general we feel we don't have much material to continue our work.
> In fact most of the competency questions come from Riccardo, not from the
> best practices in the WD.
>
> One option is to ask use case owners more precise questions. We started a
> questionnaire [4].
>
> What is the group's reaction on this?
> Can this be discussed at the F2F?
>
> I am afraid that without further input it will be hard to keep to our
> schedule [5], which is already very late compared to the charter.
>
> Antoine, on behalf of Riccardo, Deirdre and Christophe.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_In_Scope_For_Quality
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Quality_Aspects_In_Use_Cases
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP
> [4] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/QualityQuestionnaire
> [5] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule
>
>


-- 
---

Carlos Iglesias.
Open Data Consultant.
+34 687 917 759
contact@carlosiglesias.es
@carlosiglesias
http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en