DQV: Proposal to solve ISSUE-186

Hi,

In side discussion, Riccardo and I have identified a proposal for closing another issue on DQV
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/186 - "There might be no need for a subclass link between dqv:QualityMeasure and daq:Observation. I.e., we could re-use daq:Observation directly"

Following the decision not to re-use DaQ classes directly, the idea is
- to keep the class dqv:QualityMeasure
- to declare it equivalent to daq:Observation
- to declare it as a subclass of qb:Observation (which daq:Observation is) [1]

Then we had a brief discussion on whether we should declare explicitly dqv:QualityMeasure as a subclass of prov:Entity, which daq:Observation is [1].
I'm not so fond of it. It would make our specification heavier, and prov:Entity is not semantically very instructive, anyway.
I'd have rather some guidelines on representing provenance, following the resolutions we make in the other thread. These recommendations could end up in infering that some instances of dqv:QualityMeasure are instance of prov:Entity (e.g. if they're used as subject of prov:wasGeneratedBy).
This is how we currently do with dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution, as shown in our current DQV diagram [2].

If people want to push the subclassing as prov:Entity, then I'd suggest to still close ISSUE 186 with the proposal above, and reword the "prov:Entity-issue" for dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution: ISSUE 183 [3]. From:
"We may want to consider a revision of DCAT to make dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution subclasses of prov:Entity."
into
"We may want to consider a revision of DCAT to make dcat:Dataset and dcat:Distribution subclasses of prov:Entity, as well as declare dqv:QualityMeasure a subclass of prov:Entity."

Best,

Antoine

[1] http://butterbur04.iai.uni-bonn.de/ontologies/daq/daq#Observation
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#vocabulary-overview
[3] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/183

Received on Sunday, 6 September 2015 21:07:30 UTC