- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:43:35 +0100
- To: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
- CC: "jeremy.debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de" <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>, Giancarlo Guizzardi <gguizzardi@gmail.com>, Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ghislain, Well spotted for dqv:hasQualityMeasurement. I really think we should change dqv:QualityMeasureDataset. It is the easiest one to change (its existence is still actually questioned, see ISSUE-181 [1]). And havine heterogneity in our choice between measure and measurement would only confuse would-be users of the vocabulary, I'm afraid. Cheers, Antoine [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/181 On 2/19/16 5:32 PM, Ghislain Atemezing wrote: > Hello Antoine, all > > [ My 2 cents below ] >> Le 19 févr. 2016 à 17:16, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> a écrit : >> >> 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! > > +1 dqv:QualityMeasurement. > However, I don’t see the point to change also dqv:QualityMeasureDataset. Rather, I’d see the change in the property dqv:hasQualityMeasurement. > > > Best, > > Ghislain > --------------------------------------- > Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D > Mail: ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com <mailto:ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com> > Web:https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing <http://www.atemezing.org> > Twitter: @gatemezing > About Me: https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 16:44:06 UTC