Dear Riccardo, On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Riccardo Albertoni < albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> wrote: > > In my opinion section 7 [1], "Dimensions”, should offer a categorisation > of quality dimensions, which is not intended to be normative: It can't be, > we actually want that quality framework emerging in the future can define > their quality dimensions and categories as they need. As you know, there > is a lot of people which work on quality and we don't want to close the > door to new measures which are likely to be defined in the future. > > At the same time, I agree on providing examples of categorisation for > dimensions which can provide guidance for those who don’t need to define > their own dimension / categories. > Yes. I totally agree. IMO, we should make it clear in the document that the purpose of providing these dimensions is to make it easier for readers who don't want to define the dimensions by their own rather than restricting them only to use the ones in defined in DQV and say that one can use DQV as a framework for defining their own dimensions and metrics. +1 to the proposal of citing other possible categorizations such as the one from Zaveri et al. Best Regards, Nandana
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 12:30:10 UTC