Re: Misleading definitions of dqv properties

I understand that this is might be a hassle. I am only mentioning this issue, as it was also raised by the guys at protege. Maybe from a ‘reading' point of view, it is easier to say that for example a metric is in a dimension rather than a metric has dimension. This is only an opinion, and of course we should decide on a definition.

The script should be provided anyway… that does not hurt. I can help with that. I also have a daq to csv converter if you think that it is useful to have.


On 08 Feb 2016, at 11:09, Riccardo Albertoni <<>> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

  as far as I understand the examples you have mentioned  are not  inconsistencies,  DQV and DAQ are actually two separated namespaces, and thus even if dqv:X and daq:X  have similar "names", they are two distinct properties.

 During the process of inclusion of  DAQ into DQV, the group  members  decided to  invert some properties  because they thought they would  have been  more intuitive in that way, or for other  reasons .. .  I have to admit    I  am a little reluctant  in amending the group's decision  at this stage, even   considering the amount of issues  we have yet had the time to address  ;)

 I can agree that having the same X with different meaning might be somehow confusing when you use both ontologies and you move back and forth  from DAQ to DQV,   but  sincerely, I consider this as a very minor  issue, I also believe that no many persons will really need to move back and forth from  DAQ to  DAQ.

At the end, if I am wrong, and moving back and forth from DQV to DAQ is such a  common need,   we can always consider to provide a SPARQL script/query to automatize the translation between  the two ontologies, as  suggested by Phil in the last DQV call.

Does it sound reasonable?


PS. Could you share your last version of DAQ, I do not see the inverse properties you have mentioned at the DAQ web site I usually refer to  [1].


On 8 February 2016 at 18:16, Debattista, Jeremy <<>> wrote:
Hi Riccardo, Antoine,

I was presenting the DQV and realised that the properties “dqv:hasMetric”, “dqv:hasDimension” and “dqv:hasCategory” are a bit misleading - especially if for example it has to be compared with daQ. I would suggest that they are renamed to “dqv:inDimension” etc… (esp. that they are inverse of daQ properties).

For example, dqv:hasDimension is defined to be the inverse of daq:hasMetric.. whilst in dqv we also have dqv:hasMetric. This might lead to unnecessary inconsistencies.

What do you think?


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
Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/




Received on Monday, 8 February 2016 21:43:56 UTC