Re: DQV - metrics related to the completeness dimension

I mean to challenge your assumption that we are not creating the DQV for use by scientists to make statements about the completeness of data sources. I think that is a mistake.
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Steven Adler <> wrote:

> Because people don't know what they don't know.  Scientists, politicians, data experts - anyone who published data has limited resources to do so and poor data quality is endemic to publishing.   Sources have to be corroborated and we can make it easier to corroborate by building into the vocabulary.
> Best Regards,
> Steve
> Annette Greiner --- Re: DQV - metrics related to the completeness dimension ---
> From:	"Annette Greiner" <>
> To:	"Steven Adler" <>
> Cc:	"Nandana Mihindukulasooriya" <>, "Debattista, Jeremy" <>, "Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group" <>, "Makx Dekkers" <>
> Date:	Wed, Sep 30, 2015 1:29 PM
> Subject:	Re: DQV - metrics related to the completeness dimension
> Why do you insist on this? My primary interest in this group is on behalf of scientists. I think they would welcome a way to express what they see as the completeness of a dataset to their colleagues. -Annette

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:05 AM, Steven Adler wrote: > I want to say emphatically that we are not dealing with scientists publishing papers and making scientific statements about completeness of data sources. We are talking about organizations with financial interests in asserting their point of view when they publish data. We must insist that one assertion of quality is never enough. 

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2015 19:15:09 UTC