Re: Brainstorming data quality needs within the Dataset Usage Vocabulary.

Hi Antoine,

I was thinking that the data quality vocabulary would support objective
metrics, subjective metrics, and qualified opinions on the dataset as well.

Proposed example objective metrics on dataset:
* Consumer DCAT:Dataset usage should be tracked by metrics such as a
counter.

Proposed example subjective metrics on dataset:
* Metrics should be used to rate consumer acceptability for a DCAT:Dataset.

Proposed example qualified opinions:
* Metrics should be used to rate qualifications of consumer providing
opinions about a DCAT:Dataset

I just want to make sure I'm not doing anything that will conflict or be
redundant with the data quality efforts.

Thanks,

Eric S



On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> This is quite an interesting discussion...
>
> My two cents would be that the following would be in scope for the Quality
> vocabulary
> "Consumers should be able to provide feedback on overall DCAT:Dataset
> quality"
>
> The rest would be out-of-scope. Maybe from the perspective of the data
> usage vocabulary it make sense to further qualify the 'raters', in the case
> they would be also data users.
>
> From the perspective of quality voc that's just a no-go. We're fighting to
> get concrete requirements for a framework for representing quality of
> datasets, we shouldn't embark on getting a framework to represent the
> quality of people.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
> On 4/16/15 10:47 PM, Eric Stephan wrote:
>
>> Question:  Does the following help clarify/confuse the quality needs from
>> the Dataset Usage Vocabulary perspective?
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if anyone from the Data Quality Vocabulary was on the call
>> on the second day of F2F3 when we discussed the Data Usage Vocabulary topic.
>>
>>
>> I think there were some important points that were made:
>>
>> 1) The "Data Usage Vocabulary" had been changed to the "Dataset Usage
>> Vocabulary".
>>
>>
>> 2) This name change was done with the intention to focus our efforts on
>> providing a vocabulary at the DCAT:Dataset level only.
>>
>>
>> 3) By focusing efforts at the DCAT:Dataset level it allowed us to avoid
>> the seemingly endless are we talking data or dataset discussions.  Most
>> importantly it allowed us to talk about DCAT:Dataset has being a logical
>> container for a "set of data".
>>
>>
>>
>> My hope is that this might simply how we build bridges between the
>> Dataset Usage Vocabulary and the Data Quality Vocabulary.
>>
>>
>> Below are listed some tangible minimal quality related requirements for
>> DCAT:Dataset Usage:
>>
>>
>> * Consumer DCAT:Dataset usage should be tracked by metrics such as a
>> counter.
>>
>> * Consumers should be able to provide feedback on overall DCAT:Dataset
>> quality
>>
>> * Consumers should be rated for their qualifications when commenting on
>> DCAT:Dataset.
>>
>> * Metrics should be used to rate consumer acceptability for a
>> DCAT:Dataset.
>>
>>               -   Boolean metrics should be used to indicate overall
>> approval/disapproval.
>>
>>               -  Integer scale metrics should be used to indicate levels
>> of acceptability.
>>
>> * Metrics should be used to rate qualifications of consumer providing
>> opinions about a DCAT:Dataset
>>
>>
>> I welcome more ideas for requirements, but these requirements do
>> illustrate the data quality needs of the Dataset Usage Vocabulary.
>>
>>
>> I look forward to your thoughts and ideas,
>>
>>
>> Eric S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>