- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:12:48 +0100
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Quick comments on DQV after F2F meeting. Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:14:57 +0300 From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> To: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, Deirdre Lee (Derilinx) <deirdre@derilinx.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> Hi everyone, I can't make it at the call today. and didn't have time to work on my actions. It's great to have seen progress, though! There's still one pending question: what was the proposed timing, actually? I think Riccardo has still not answered my questions on #3 below! Cheers, Antoine On 4/16/15 8:36 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi Riccardo, > > thanks a lot for the summary! > I had not time to look at the minutes for the part of the call I haven't attended yet, so this is very useful. > Some feedback. > > 1) Alright, if we can go in FPWD with a relatively pre-mature voc. > > 2) Most of the things you write in this point make much sense. Making a first shot articulating DCAT and DAQ seems a good idea. We'd have ended up with something like this as our basis, anyway, I feel! So I will gladly seize your answer :-) > > I know some other people at VU Amsterdam working on quality, and was planning to re-contact them after the F2F. But they work more on eliciting more info regarding dimensions and metrics, we would need to do the 'basic' work ourselves. > > About the scoping issue: what do you mean precisely with: "the need that other representations of quality are somehow considered besides computed metrics"? > > 3) I'm ok having a call on Friday 22 May as you write. But you seem to refer that the call is in fact earlier, even next week? If yes, then I would gladly postpone to the one next. But that's May 1st, I guess the call will be cancelled. > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > On 4/15/15 10:33 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: >> Dear Antoine and Christophe, >> >> let me drop you some quick comments resulting from the F2F and off-line chat I had with Phil and Deirdre. >> @ Phil and Deirdre: please correct me if I have misunderstood any of your points. >> >> 1) Phil suggests that we have out the FPWD of the Quality Vocabulary at the end of May, not at mid/late June. >> According to Phil, this is necessary due to issues related to the management of the group and his need to report to W3C on group advancements . >> >> So, Phil's idea would be to keep the schedule proposed by Antoine in [1], but having the FPWD out based on "Spec, first version of the vocabulary" which is expected by 22nd of May, and then, to face the rest of the activity as part of comments/ feedbacks /refinement of the FPWD. >> 2) I think we had some useful feedbacks from the F2F discussion on quality [2], in particular we had an agreement on >> - what quality dimensions we might start with, namely dimension from the Open Data Support list and Makx's Share-PSI session (see action [3] and related resolution) >> and a sort of agreement on >> - the adoption of DAQ as starting point especially to represent quality dimensions and computed metrics. >> - the need that other representations of quality are somehow considered besides computed metrics, e.g., we should be able to say that the quality is described in an SLA (see action [4]), or the data set is compliant to a given "standard", best practice set ect. >> >> I know this is still far from the set of requirements we might need to share with the group in order to design the DQV, but at the same time, I tend to agree with Phil and Deirdre: we should move on, get a first draft that makes sense for us, and that will force the discussion on more specific issues, that will probably help eliciting/revising the list of requirements and in building a consensus on those requirements the group hasn't yet agreed on. >> >> In this respect, I hope next week I will be able to find a proper slot to incorporate DCAT, Jeremy's DAQ, and non-metric-based quality representations in a very early draft concept schema for DQV. No Rocket science, just a very early draft ( 3/ 4 entities and few relations) we can reason and refine on. Do you think that might help? Do you want me to do it? Or we have already people working on this? >> >> 3) it seems that, from here to end of May, we will have at least a Friday-call fully dedicated to DQV. Deirdre is suggesting to have a "DQV Friday" the next Friday (the 22nd of May), and she was also one of those suggesting we should get an early draft schema of concepts to discuss. >> >> If I you want me to provide such early concept schema draft, I would recommend to have the DQV dedicated Friday call a week later (29Th instead of 22nd). That, in order to be sure that Antoine, Christophe and Deirdre can comment/ amend my draft and we can discuss a more significative/stable version with the rest of the group. >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> Best, >> Riccardo >> >> >> >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_quality_schedule >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#item02 >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/13-dwbp-minutes.html#action07 >> [4] http://www.w3.org/2015/04/14-dwbp-minutes.html#action12 >> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Riccardo Albertoni >> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico Magenes" >> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche >> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA >> tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660 >> e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> >> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni >> www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni >> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni >> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf > >
Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 12:13:02 UTC