Re: Misleading definitions of dqv properties

Dear Jeremy and All,

After some extra thinking, I am seriously reconsidering your proposal about
 renaming the properties,
 I have  just realized that your proposal  might solve the issue
https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/231, and in my view, that brings
a completely new shine on it ;)

 Of course,  the proposal puts some extra work on Editors, but  at the end,
  it does not substantially change the decisions the group has already
taken (i.e. direction of the properties),   besides  it avoids some clash
 between property names  which  definitely  makes less complex
understanding the relation between DAQ and DQV.


So let's try to put it  in a form we can vote on it

Proposal:  rename  in DQV document and  the related turtle serialization
dqv:hasMetric in  dqv:inMetric
dqv:hasDimension in dqv:inDimension
dqv:hasCategory in dqv:inCategory


With this solution, we'll still have a coherent name convention for the
metric/dimension/category hierarchy ( dqv:in* instead of dqv:has*)  and
 we'll get rid of unnecessary "inconsistencies" between DQV and DAQ ...  it
 sounds like two birds with one stone ..

@Antoine:  if we agree on this proposal we can claim victory on  issue 231,
can't we ?


Best,
Riccardo




On 8 February 2016 at 22:43, Debattista, Jeremy <
Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Jer
>
>
>
>
> On 08 Feb 2016, at 11:09, Riccardo Albertoni <
> riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> 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?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Riccardo
>
> 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].
>
> [1] http://butterbur04.iai.uni-bonn.de/ontologies/daq/daq#
>
>
> On 8 February 2016 at 18:16, Debattista, Jeremy <
> Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de> 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?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jer
>>
>> --
>> 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
> 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, 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
Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
www: http://www.imati.cnr.it/ <http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni>
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------