- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 13:13:17 +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 13:35:35 +0200 From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> To: Debattista, Jeremy <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de> CC: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl>, Deirdre Lee (Derilinx) <deirdre@derilinx.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> Great, thanks a lot! Riccardo On 24 April 2015 at 13:02, Debattista, Jeremy < Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Hi Riccardo, > > I will have a closer look during the weekend/early next week. > > Cheers, > Jeremy > > On 24 Apr 2015, at 12:55, Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> > wrote: > > Hi Antoine, > > my apologies if I have not answered questions on #3.. and I have > mistaken the date in my previous mail, I was looking at the wrong month I > certainly need some vacation :( > > My proposal is, > a -we should try to have a DVQ conceptual scheme on which the restricted > group of people closely woking on DVQ have a first agreement. [mid of next > week??] > b - editors send a mail asking for feedbacks from the rest of the group > [end of next week?!?] > c - compile a list of issue to be discussed in a Friday call [ mid of > first week of May ??!!] > d- have a Friday call on DVQ and related open issue [ 8 of May???] > > Does this make sense for DVQ editors? If it is not please feel free to > make your proposal. > > From my point of view, it is important that the rest of people closely > involved in the Data quality vocabulary, provides their feedbacks about the > current draft and the design questions I have listed in [1]. > So that we can have a version to share with the rest of the group, and > have a proper Friday call dedicated to DVQ. > > Are you, Jeremy or Deirdre planning to send feedback by next week ? > Christophe has already sent some feedbacks, I am going to reply him as > soon as possible and to update the schema according to the discussion. > If no feedbacks are expected, from you, Jeremy, Deirdre we should > probably share the conceptual scheme and open the discussion with the rest > of the group. > > I think DVQ editors ( Antoine, Christophe) might also start considering > what of the current DVQ conceptual scheme and previous requirements work > they plan to include in the FPWD. I would like to avoid that my requests > for design feedbacks go too far and bring the discussion far from the real > goal, which is "to get a first working draft for DVQ by the end of May" :) > > Hope my view is a little clearer now.. > > Ciao, > Riccardo > > > [1].https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Data_Quality_Vocabulary_(DQV) > > > > > > > On 24 April 2015 at 11:14, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be >> clean. >> >> >> > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > 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 > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be > clean. > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 12:13:27 UTC