Re: DQV Comments

Excellent, thanks for the feedback, Laufer!

Antoine

On 6/12/15 3:25 AM, Laufer wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>
>         --
>         .  .  .  .. .  .
>         .        .   . ..
>         .     ..       .
>
>
>
>
> --
> .  .  .  .. .  .
> .        .   . ..
> .     ..       .

Received on Friday, 19 June 2015 11:50:27 UTC