Re: DQV Comments

Hi Antoine,

Ok. I think is good to have a self-contained document.

Best,
Laufer

Em quinta-feira, 11 de junho de 2015, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
escreveu:

> 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,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/#class-concept
>
> 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 http://purl.org/eis/vocab/daq#
>> ,
>> it is necessary to have qb:Observation, daqMetric, daq:Dimension,
>> daq:Category explicitly defined in DQV Data Model?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laufer
>>
>> --
>> .  .  .  .. .  .
>> .        .   . ..
>> .     ..       .
>>
>
>

-- 
.  .  .  .. .  .
.        .   . ..
.     ..       .