dwbp-ISSUE-187: Do we want to keep the same occurrence constraints as defined in DAQ (for example, that every metric should belong to exactly one dimension)? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary] from Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker on 2015-06-12 (public-dwbp-wg@w3.org from June 2015)

From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:20:22 +0000
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Z3L8Q-000872-NR@maia.w3.org>

dwbp-ISSUE-187: Do we want to keep the same occurrence constraints as defined in DAQ (for example, that every metric should belong to exactly one dimension)?  [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary]

http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/187

Raised by: Antoine Isaac
On product: Quality & Granularity Vocabulary

Do we want to keep the same occurrence constraints as defined in DAQ (for example, that every metric should belong to exactly one dimension)? In this specific case this may be demanding too much on quality data publishers: it could be that a metric does not clearly belong to a dimension, or that a metric is in scope for several dimensions.

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 09:20:28 UTC