- From: Debattista, Jeremy <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:33:32 +0000
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- CC: Giancarlo Guizzardi <gguizzardi@gmail.com>, Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, It depends how it should be perceived. For example, I would go for observation rather than measurement. When we measure quality (of a particular metric) we are actually creating an observation of that metric on a dataset at a particular time. So with the data cube terminology we can have multiple observations of 1 particular metric. On the other hand, for me it does not sound correct to have multiple “measure”s (or measurements) of a particular quality metric. Of course, we can still create multiple “measures”, but will it sound right?. In my opinion, an observation contains a measure (as analogy to value). Although both are fine for me, I tend to favour observation. Cheers, Jer > On 19 Feb 2016, at 14:48, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for the feedback. > > @Giancarlo, can we consider these papers to be an anser to your action-202 (https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/202)? > > @Riccardo, in fact I understand that according to ISO 'measure' would be worse than 'measurement', as for them the measure is abstract, and the measurement is concrete, so closer to what we currently call 'measure' in DQV (and what Datacube calls observation). > > @all: re. coming back to 'observation' for DQV, I now count 2 against, 1 in favour ;-) > > Antoine > > On 2/19/16 2:28 PM, Giancarlo Guizzardi wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Perhaps the following papers (from our research group) >> could be of help: >> >> http://nemo.inf.ufes.br/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/a_well_founded_software_measurement_ontology_2010.pdf >> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1301/ontocomodise2014_9.pdf >> >> best regards, >> Giancarlo >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto:riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I think "QualityMeasure" is the most natural choice for people coming from the quality domain, who in my opinion are our primary target. "QualityObservation" might result a little confusing for people who are not aware of RDFCube terminology. >> I am almost sure to remember that we decided to rename daq:Observation in DQV:QualityMeasure for the above reasons. >> I find interesting that ISO seems to use the term "measurement" for the action, and "measure" for the result of the action, >> >> [[ >> 4.5 data quality measure >> variable to which a value is assigned as the result of measurement of a data quality characteristic >> ]] >> >> >> That might be a sort of answer to the "measurement vs measure" doubt, I suspect the two words are almost interchangeable, as the merriam webster seems to suggest in [1] and [2], but here I would leave the last word to the native speakers .... >> >> >> Cheers, >> Riccardo >> [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/measurement >> [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/measure >> >> On 19 February 2016 at 11:49, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es>> wrote: >> >> Hi Antoine, >> >> If it helps, "quality measure" is defined in ISO/IEC 25012 [1] as >> >> [[ >> 4.5 data quality measure >> variable to which a value is assigned as the result of measurement of a data quality characteristic >> ]] >> >> which is based on ISO/IEC 15939:2007 [2] >> >> [[ >> 2.15 >> measure, noun >> variable to which a value is assigned as the result of measurement >> ]] >> >> However, I agree that it might not have the same meaning in the Data Cube. Personally I am ok with renaming QualityMeasure as QualityObservation if we want to align it more with it's parent class from the Data Cube. >> >> Best Regards, >> Nandana >> >> [1] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:25012:ed-1:v1:en >> [2] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:15939:ed-2:v2:en >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Related to ongoing discussions on DQV terminology, I have now a doubt on how we use the word 'measure'. >> >> In the spec, dqv:QualityMeasure is a sub-class of (Datacube) qb:Observation [1] and an instance of dqv:QualityMeasure can be interpreted as the result of an action (of observing). >> >> But I'm not sure this is really in line with the Datacube notions. In the definitions at [2] (especially in section 6) 'measures' are rather conceptual. Actually they may sit rather at the level of what we call 'metric' than at the level of thecurrent dqv:QualityMeasure. >> >> I am also wondering whether some of us (especially me) may be biased because in our native languages, the noun 'measure' (not the verb!) may have a wider acception than in English. For example in French the noun 'mesure' can mean both the metric (in a mathematical sense) and the result of the action of measuring. Maybe English speakers would rather call the latter a 'measurement', (even though the boundaries for this noun are also not very clear in English either). >> >> What do the native English speakers in the group think? >> >> If there's general agreement that 'measure' is too confusing, then I'd suggest we replace QualityMeasure by QualityMeasurement or QualityObservation. >> >> The problem is that the 'noun' observation will also be confusing for people outside the DataCube context. If I was not a bit familiar with Datacube, I'd think that dqv:QualityObservation could be a superclass of other classes in DQV like dqv:UserQualityFeedback [1]... >> >> Best, >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#dqv:QualityMeasure >> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/ >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 <tel:%2B39-010-6475624> - fax +39-010-6475660 <tel:%2B39-010-6475660> >> e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto: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, 19 February 2016 14:34:13 UTC