Re: ISSUE-202: Relation between dqv, iso 19115/19157 and geodcat-ap

Hi Riccardo,

Thanks for picking this up!

I agree with you about trying to capture the "non-conformance" statement. If we all agree we should open a new issue about this.
For the "not evaluated" I'm also skeptical. I would tend to rely on the lack of any statement whether it's conformant or not. Maybe this is too much a 'close world assumption' approach, but I'm really reluctant on creating metadata that declare a dataset as not evaluated, if it can be evaluated in the times (months, days?) that follow the publication of the metadata.

So this would answer Andrea's point 2: we'd be willing to comply with ISO's practice, but not the full range of INSPIRE options.

About Andrea's following point #3: my take is that the dcterms:conformsTo pattern is right now my prefered one, by far. It's hard for me to make sense of the PROV pattern: a blank node with a dc:type, really? And the general use of PROV properties (prov:wasUsedBy, prov:hadPlan) really makes me feel awkward: the distance between this and the intended semantics ('there's been an conformance assessment of the datasets that resulted in a "conformant" label') is really big. To me the PROV pattern would need to use more specialized constructs, and some shortcuting of the blank nodes. The EARL pattern was more intuitive, in many ways, while still offering an anchor for expressing provenance.
What do you think?

Finally for Andrea's point #1. I think we should provide some sort of compatibility with ISO 19117 and 19157, yes. The conformance/non-conformance point is one thing, but there might be more.
I'm afraid it will take us some time though. Especially if we have to work with 'derived' sources like [2,3]: I don't have access to the original ISO specs.
So maybe we'll have to leave ISSUE-202 open for long...

Antoine

[2] https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=ISO_Data_Quality
[3] https://geo-ide.noaa.gov/wiki/index.php?title=File:DQ_DataQuality.png

On 11/12/15 2:27 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> Dear All,
> I had the opportunity to take a quick look at Andrea's feedback on DQV[1] which originated the ISSUE 202, he suggested some new requirements on DQV  expressivity which I would  summarize in
>
> Should DQV be able to state  that a dataset is  "not conformant" to a given standard or  its conformance "has not been  evaluated”?
>
> DQV is already able to  express the notion of "Conformance to” a standard via the property dcterm:conformsTo.  However, according to Andrea's comments,  we might bring further compatibility to ISO 19157:2013 and INSPIRE by adding respectively "Not conformat"   and   "not evaluated" in the DQV expressivity.
>
> Personally, I am quite  in favour to fulfill the first requirement ("Not conformat") , not very convinced  about the second ("not evaluated").
>
> Do you have any opinion on that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Riccardo
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Aug/0146.html
>
> On 9 October 2015 at 16:00, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     ISSUE-202: Relation between dqv, iso 19115/19157 and geodcat-ap
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/202
>
>     Raised by:
>     On product:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Riccardo Albertoni
> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico Magenes"
> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
> tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
> e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
> www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni
> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 17:54:11 UTC