Re: DQV Comments

Hi Steven,

Happy to discuss this too!
But it might not be best to do it in the next call: Riccardo and I are not here, and I'd like to have at least two of the three current DQV editors on board :-)

Best,

Antoine

On 6/22/15 4:15 PM, Steven Adler wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> I think we could look at constructing an architecture for DQ that focuses on corroboration and validation, in which all sources of Data on the Web should at least be doubted without x number of corroboration sources, some lineage validation, and some data decay formula.  The architecture could focus on the technical characteristics of linked data corroboration and lineage validation and we could insert methods for using the architecture into the BP document.
>
> Happy to discuss on the next DQV call.  When is it?
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve
>
> Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>
> Inactive hide details for Antoine Isaac ---06/19/2015 08:12:50 AM---Hi Steve, You're reading it fully right.Antoine Isaac ---06/19/2015 08:12:50 AM---Hi Steve, You're reading it fully right.
>
>
>     From:
>
> 	
> Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
>
>     To:
>
> 	
> "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
>
>     Date:
>
> 	
> 06/19/2015 08:12 AM
>
>     Subject:
>
> 	
> Re: DQV Comments
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> You're reading it fully right.
>
> The first answer is that we need to have a very general framework, so that everyone can create data that represent their own metrics or subjective assessments, which they think should be done. It is very difficult to anticipate the diversity of needs, and we don't want to create a straitjacket that would prevent too many people from extending our DQV in the way they need it.
>
> The second answer is that such an abstract framework is not very satisfactory for us editors, too. This is why we've created a section on example usage [1], if just to give ideas to readers on how to use the generic framework. This is still work in progress, as you can see.
>
> The problem is that we don't have much input from the DWBP use cases and best practices. They too mention quality in a very abstract way, as we've found in our analysis [2,3]. I've repeatedly asked for more input (e.g. during the last F2F), but it seems really not easy for the group to do it.
>
> So if we want to add stuff now, we have to look outside the current UCs and BPs, as I think our investigations on completeness has showed [4].
> In fact we have some leads. For example, a colleague from VU, Davide Ceolin, works on expressing ISO quality criteria for datasets as RDF.
> But doing more requires time, which the editors alone don't have. Actually for the last F2F we had even started to create a questionnaire [5] but none of us could push it further.
>
> And in any case, it will not provide a mandate for including properties and classes for specialized metrics or subjective assessments (annotations) in DQV itself, if this is what you're after.
> Fitting specialized classes and properties as part of the standard is possible only if we find evidence of general need for them, preferably based on the material the group has gathered.
>
> But of course if you have ideas (and it seems you have some) to extend the current material we must start with, it's more than welcome!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#examples
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Quality_Aspects_In_Use_Cases
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Requirements_From_FPWD_BP
> [4] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/153
> [5] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/QualityQuestionnaire
>
> On 6/15/15 8:24 PM, Steven Adler wrote:
>  > Just reading through the DQV and apologize if my comments are uninformed.  From my experience with Data Quality, one can make objective observations about Data Quality based on the age of the data, in which one assigns various decay factors and calculates age(decay factor), it's completeness in which a percentage can be applied.  One can also apply subjective assessments by comparing one data set to other sources.  One can even assert that data without comparative sources can't be trusted - no unbribed journalist would ever publics a story without corroborated sources...
>  >
>  > But when I read the DQV I don't really get these points and the whole thing feels very abstract.  Am I reading it wrong?
>  >
>  >
>  > Best Regards,
>  >
>  > Steve
>  >
>  > Motto: "Do First, Think, Do it Again"
>  >
>  > Inactive hide details for Laufer ---06/11/2015 09:26:29 PM---Hi Antoine, Ok. I think is good to have a self-contained document.Laufer ---06/11/2015 09:26:29 PM---Hi Antoine, Ok. I think is good to have a self-contained document.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!
> ---
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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 Tuesday, 23 June 2015 20:09:45 UTC