- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 13:50:12 +0200
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi everyone, Eric's description "Data Quality descriptions can exist as an assessment independently of Data Usage." seems to say it all! If the data usage voc needs to include quality assessment by users (which I'm not sure of - DU voc is to describe usage, not an assessment of usage, no?) then it would make much sense to refer to the Q&G voc from the DU voc. But I would keep anything related to quality assessment to the Q&G voc. Cheers, Antoine On 4/12/15 12:49 PM, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > dwbp-ISSUE-159 (Eric Stephan): Is R-QualityOpinions more of a Data Usage Vocabulary concept? [Data Usage Vocabulary] > > http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/159 > > Raised by: Eric Stephan > On product: Data Usage Vocabulary > > The Data Usage Vocabulary can rely on the Data Quality and Granularity vocabulary to describe types of feedback, in the form of metrics etc. Data Quality descriptions can exist as an assessment independently of Data Usage. E.g. a data producer provides assessments to the data producer at the time of publication. > > Question: Is it more natural fit for the R-QualityOpinions requirements to be a part of the Data Usage Vocabulary IF R-QualityOpinions is only to be used to describe consumer feedback? > > If R-QualityOpinions is viewed as the other Data Quality vocabulary requirements where opinions could be provided in some cases independent of Data Usage feedback, then perhaps R-QualityOpinions should stay a part of the Data Quality Vocabulary. > > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2015 11:50:44 UTC