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

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

From: Ghislain Atemezing <auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 18:05:38 +0100
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>
Message-Id: <612C9CF3-9562-4BFB-AE22-85DD63BE8E21@eurecom.fr>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Hi Antoine, 
> Le 19 févr. 2016 à 17:43, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> a écrit :
> 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]).

I see your point. I’m not fan of long “names” for classes. That’s just subjective. 
> And havine heterogneity in our choice between measure and measurement would only confuse would-be users of the vocabulary, I'm afraid.

Just for curiosity: Are there any studies on how confused are users of vocabularies in the names picked by the creators? I’d love to have such pointers. 



Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
Mail: ghislain.atemezing@gmail.com
Web: https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing <http://www.atemezing.org/>
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me: https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing <https://about.me/ghislain.atemezing>

Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 17:06:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:44 UTC