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

Re: Misleading definitions of dqv properties

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:40:22 +0100
Message-ID: <56C74576.30004@few.vu.nl>
To: Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, "Nandana Mihindukulasooriya" <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
CC: "Debattista, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>, "DWBP Public List" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

In the light of today's discussion on choosing 'measurement'...

The choice for the name of the property that connects instances of dqv:QualityMeasurement to instances dqv:Metric is now between
- isMeasurementOf
- evaluatesMetric  

Riccard below states that Jeremy, Nandana and him slightly prefered 'isMeasureOf' in the previous choice. I assume that their choice now would be for 'isMeasurementOf'. and to keep things as simple as possible I'm going to side with them!

So we have now on the table to close ISSUE-231 by having the following properties in DQV:
- dqv:isMeasurementOf (equivalent to daq:metric)
- dqv:inDimension (inverse of daq:hasMetric)
- dqv:inCategory (inverse of daq:hasDimension)

Unless there's a strong objection we could close ISSUE-231 with this in the next call then!

Antoine

On 2/19/16 10:07 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm sorry but in relation with the discussion I've raised at [1] for the moment I'd prefer evaluatesMetric as it avoids 'measure', if we remove it from the label of dqv:QualityMeasure. Or maybe we can just wait a couple of days to make the decision here. Let's see how [1] develops...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2016Feb/0056.html
>
> On 2/17/16 11:58 AM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>   Nandana and Jeremy seems to converge to isMeasureOf, for me is ok.
>> @Antoine: Shall we agree on isMeasureOf ?
>>
>> just to be ready for proposing a vote and close issue 231 :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Riccardo
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 February 2016 at 12:47, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es <mailto:nmihindu@fi.upm.es>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Just looking at how they sound,
>>
>>     (1.a) _:measure1 dqv:isMeasureOf _:metricA
>>     (1.b) _:measure1 dqv:evaluatesMetric _:metricA
>>     (1.c) _:measure1 dqv:computedMetric _:metricA
>>     (1.d) _:metricA dqv:hasMeasure _:measure1
>>
>>     I also think isMeasureOf and evaluatesMetric are good options. I slightly prefer isMeasureOf because it sounds a bit more consistent with the dqv:QualityMeasure.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>     Nandana
>>
>>     --
>>     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>
>> 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 16:40:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 February 2016 16:40:58 UTC