Re: DQV Comments

Hi Laufer,

Thanks for the comment!

We've just followed existing practice in DCAT. Ie. DCAT re-uses the skos:Concept class, and still "re-defines" it in the DCAT reference doc [1].
I guess other 'vocabulary documentation schools' would not reproduce the external info. But I do like the idea of having a self-contained document, at least as long as the effort is not huge.

And in the case of DQV and DAQ there's another point: as pointed explicitly (as an ISSUE) in the DQV draft, we may end up have to re-declare the DAQ constructs as DQV (or even DCAT) ones, later. In that case it will have been a smart move to have the doc self-contained, earlier than later.

Kind regards,



On 6/11/15 8:01 PM, Laufer wrote:
> Hi, Antoine, Christophe, Riccardo,
> First of all, thank your for your efforts in DQV.
> I have a question about the DQV Data model  (Fig.1):
> Considering that dqv:QualityMeasure is a subclass of daq:Observation, and that
> the relations beetwen daq:Observation, qb:Observation, daqMetric, daq:Dimension, daq:Category are defined in,
> it is necessary to have qb:Observation, daqMetric, daq:Dimension, daq:Category explicitly defined in DQV Data Model?
> Thank you.
> Best Regards,
> Laufer
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .

Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 22:18:11 UTC