W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > February 2016

Re: DQV terminology - Quality Measure, Measurement, Observation?

From: Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:23:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQUfpUCHwMkV7U1cTnFvWHrQZDHKd76FERZGSVcD3u=2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "Debattista, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>, Giancarlo Guizzardi <gguizzardi@gmail.com>, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
+1 to Antoine and Annette

By following the same principle,
I guess we should  change dqv:QualityMeasureDataset into
 dqv:QualityMeasurementDataset, don't you think?

Cheers,
Riccardo

On 19 February 2016 at 17:16, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The native speakers have spoken in the call today, including some who have
> experience in the realm of measurings/ements/observations [1]
> (by the way the minutes do not capture Annette's feedback, and that was
> crucial!)
>
> Their preferences goes to 'measurement', if they have to pick among the
> options on this thread.
>
> So we will replace dqv:QualityMeasure by dqv:QualityMeasurement. Unless
> someone who was not on the call raises a strong (and quick) objection!
>
> @Jeremy, I understand your concern but FWIW I think the sound of having
> several measurements for a metric seems alright. Actually to me it sounds
> better than having several measures for a metric...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-dwbp-minutes
>
>
> On 2/19/16 3:33 PM, Debattista, Jeremy wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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.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 16:24:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 February 2016 16:24:16 UTC