Re: Misleading definitions of dqv properties from Riccardo Albertoni on 2016-02-12 (public-dwbp-wg@w3.org from February 2016)

From: Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:38:06 +0100
To: "Debattista, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQWx7di7tvgKWJQY7WLO9=npa4uWkuCMnNoZvAdwG+5fg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Antoine and Jeremy,
both evaluatesMetric and isMeasureOf are good for me,

 evaluatesMetric sounds slightly more human understandable to me

Best,

Riccardo

On 12 February 2016 at 00:51, Debattista, Jeremy <
Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Hi Antoine,
>
> Let me summarize:
> - dqv:inMetric would be equivalent to daq:metric (and we wouldn't have any
> dqv:hasMetric that can be interpreted to be daq:hasMetric)
> - dqv:inDimension would be the inverse of daq:hasMetric (and we wouldn't
> have any daq:hasDimension that can be interpreted wrongly to be
> daq:hasDimension)
> - dqv:inCategory would be the inverse of daq:hasDimension
>
> I have one problem though: I really don't like the sound of a Measure
> being 'in' a Metric. A Measure is made according to (or following?) a
> metric, or something like this, but it's not 'in' a metric.
> In fact I'm also not super keen on a metric 'in' a dimension, but that's
> less a problem. And I'm perfectly ok with the sound of a dimension being
> 'in' a category.
>
> I do not like the “inMetric” neither..
>
> So I'd suggest to try at least to find a different name for dqv:inMetric.
> We could have dqv:computedMetric, following how daQ represents other
> features of quality observations (i.e. using daq:computedOn,
> daq:computedBy). Or maybe dqv:evaluatesMetric? This may match the
> mathematical approach where metric are functions, and functions are
> 'evaluated' for specific input values (sorry I'm not an expert in English
> mathematical wording…)
>
>
> .. what about “isMeasureOf”? If we had to revert the direction of
> properties, Metric “hasMeasure” QualityMeasure, sounds good imo..
> therefore, keeping the direction as is and using traditional naming
> conventions, i guess “isMeasureOf” might also be a good substitute. Any
> thoughts about this?
>
> ‘evaluatesMetric’ sounds good to me as well
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jer
>
> Actually the more I think of it, the more I believe that:
>
> - following the convention :x for properties and :X for classes (just as
> daQ and DataCube do, cf my earlier mail [1]) would make our like easier. We
> could try to have the group vote on this!
>
> - 'measure' in dqv:QualityMeasure is not an optimal choice when there's a
> class called dqv:Metric that needs to be related to it by a property with a
> nice name ;-)
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Dec/0101.html
>
> On 2/11/16 12:21 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
>
> 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<
> mailto:Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de
> <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<
> mailto:riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
> <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<
> mailto:Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de
> <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 <tel:%2B39-010-6475624 <%2B39-010-6475624>> - fax
> +39-010-6475660 <tel:%2B39-010-6475660 <%2B39-010-6475660>>
>    e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <
> mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
> <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 <
> mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
> <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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 11:38:37 UTC