- From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:55:21 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-dwbp-comments <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>, Vladimir Alexiev <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine, I revised the example considering the "way 1", see my last push. On 26 July 2016 at 19:48, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Riccardo, > > The gain is 'oriented' so anything that will clarify that it is so will be > beneficial. > > I think this can be done in two ways, depending on which level of > 'harcoding' of the direction in the metric you prefer. > > > 1. Adding the statements void:subjectsTarget and void:objectsTarget on the > Linkset, and declaring that for computing the Metric > :importingForPropertyPercentage one needs that these statements are present > on the Linkset. And that what is measured then should be the completion of > the dataset in void:subjectsTarget using the data from the dataset in > void:objectsTarget. > Note that you may also want to reflect the same sort of 'hardcoding' of the > direction of completion on the :completenessGain Dimension and the > :complementationGain Category. A dimension that gathers metrics that are > computed in different directions may be confusing. > > > 2. Leaving the void:target statements on the Linkset as they are. But then > the Metric (and the Measurement) needs to have two parameters - one for > specifying the completed dataset, and one for the completing one. > > #2 is more elegant, and it avoids the theoretical hesitation on the > dimension and the category. > But it add two parameters, which makes the example much more complex (this > example is already about two parameters) > So I'd rather go for #1. > > Note that in any case, the following sentence will have to be made sharper > by mentioning 'subject' and 'object': > "It quantifies the information gain when adding the preferred labels or the > alternative labels of the concepts from a linked dataset to the descriptions > of the concepts from the other dataset, which these concepts have been > matched with a skos:exactMatch statement from the linkset." I've tried to make this sentence sharper ;) > > Note also that we can avoid some of the theoretical thinking on the > Dimension and the Category by removing the :complementationGain Category. I > think it's not crucial to the example, and its name is not very clear. > I am not sure that deleting this we end up in a clearer example. So I have left it. > Finally, as the fact of having different measurements on different days is > not core to the example, I'd suggest to remove these extra measurements. The > example is quite complex, already. What do you think? Ok I have deleted the repeated measurements. Cheers, Riccardo > > cheers, > > Antoine > > > On 26/07/16 16:27, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: >> >> Hi Antoine, >> >> >> On 25 July 2016 at 15:24, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Riccardo, Vladimir, >>> >>> I'm looking again at the DQV after the updates on the linkset section, >>> triggered by Vladimir's comment. >>> And I'm quite puzzled. To me there was a key difference between say, >>> measurement_exactMatchAltLabelItDataset1 and >>> measurement_exactMatchAltLabelItDataset2. >>> What I understood is that same linkset can indeed lead to quite different >>> 'completion gain' depending on which dataset the gain is evaluated on. >>> >>> To take a concrete example that will be familiar to Vladimir: say a >>> linkset >>> aligns one local, monolingual vocabulary with Getty's Art and >>> Architecture >>> Thesaurus, which has several languages and can have several labels for >>> one >>> concept in one language. >>> If we try to pull the labels of one vocabulary into the other vocabulary, >>> then it's likely that such 'pulling' will complement more the local >>> vocabulary than Getty, as Getty was originally richer. >>> >>> Trying to say that the measurement are done at different dates don't >>> really >>> represent the fundamental distinction. >> >> >> In the example, we have that some of the measurements done at >> different date return different values... >> Which implies some changes have occurred. >> >>> Now, maybe the measurement should indicate clearly, which is the dataset >>> is >>> the 'completed one' on which the gain is measured, and which the >>> 'completing >>> one'. >> >> >> You are right, I just realized that we were reading the example >> differently. I was giving for granted that dataset1 and dataset2 >> were respectivelly the subject and the object of the linkset, and that >> is not necessarily the case. >> In our importing the complemented dataset is the >> "void:subjectsTarget", whereas the completing one is the >> "void:objectsTarget". So probably, we'd better to specify which >> dataset is the subject and which is the object of the dataset. >> >> That can be easily done, by replacing >> >> :myLinkset >> a dcat:Dataset, void:Linkset ; >> dcterms:title "A Linkset between My dataset 1 and My dataset 2"; >> void:linkPredicate skos:exactMatch ; >> void:target :myDataset1 ; >> void:target :myDataset2 >> . >> >> With >> >> :myLinkset >> a dcat:Dataset, void:Linkset ; >> dcterms:title "A Linkset from My dataset 1 to My dataset 2"; >> void:linkPredicate skos:exactMatch ; >> void:subjectsTarget :myDataset1 ; >> void:objectsTarget :myDataset2 >> . >> If this is ok for you, I can change it. >> >> >> >> if you want to see the impact of myDataset1 on myDataset2, you should >> assess the importing of the linkset myLinkset's reciprocal, >> :MyLinkset2 which is the linkset we can obtain inverting myLinkset, >> defined as >> >> : MyLinkset2 >> a dcat:Dataset, void:Linkset ; >> dcterms:title "A Linkset from My dataset 2 to My dataset 1"; >> void:linkPredicate skos:exactMatch ; >> void:subjectsTarget :myDataset2 ; >> void:objectsTarget :myDataset1 >> . >> >> A side comment: In the LOD, MyLinkset2 and myLinkset are very often >> managed by distinct publishers and in the reality these linkesets >> might not to be reciprocal. That is why, I think it is better to >> treat linkset as "oriented" and the two linksets as distinct. That is >> also coherent with the definition of linkset provided by VoID. >> >>> >>> In any case, I'm tempted to put back the 'dataset1' and 'dataset2' into >>> the >>> identifiers of the measurement. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> >> After my comments, are you still tempted to put back the dataset1 and >> dataset2? If yes, I would rather suggest to introduce MyLinkset2 in >> the example, just to make clearer that the linksets are oriented. >> Thought, i am not sure that level of complexity is worth .. >> >> Best, >> Riccardo >> >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Antoine >>> >>> >>> On 14/07/16 21:28, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Vladimir, >>>> Thanks for your feedbacks. >>>> >>>> On 6 July 2016 at 17:40, Vladimir Alexiev >>>> <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bugs in example https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#ExpressQualLinkset >>>>> 5.10 Express the quality of a linkset: >>>>> >>>>> - uses property dqv:hasObservation, apparently inverse of >>>>> dqv:isMeasurementOf. >>>>> However, no such property is defined in dqv.ttl. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> if you take a look at the in progress version >>>> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html, you can notice that there is >>>> no >>>> dqv:hasObservation included in the document anymore. We corrected >>>> this some time ago ;) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - there is no difference whatsoever between >>>>> measurement_exactMatchAltLabelItDataset1 and >>>>> measurement_exactMatchAltLabelItDataset2, >>>>> respectively measurement_exactMatchAltLabelEnDataset1 and >>>>> measurement_exactMatchAltLabelEnDataset2 >>>>> and measurement_exactMatchPrefLabelItDataset1 and >>>>> measurement_exactMatchprefLabelItDataset2. >>>>> They both refer to :myLinkset, not to the one or another linked >>>>> datasets. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The couples you have mentioned are meant to be repeated measurements >>>> of quality of the same linkset. Actually in the "in progress" >>>> version, we have added dcterms:date which makes that a little more >>>> clearer. I have also added a sentence to point this out. >>>> I acknowledge that the name measurement_exactMatchAltLabelItDataset >>>> is quite confusing, as the measurements are about linksets and not on >>>> the datasets, so I have cancelled the "dataset" part. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - (minor) measurement_exactMatchprefLabelItDataset2 should use >>>>> capitalized >>>>> "Pref" >>>> >>>> >>>> Done! Thanks. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - defines this twice: >>>>> qb:component [ qb:measure dqv:value;]; >>>>> >>>> I think it isn't doubled in the "in progress" version. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Riccardo >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 16:55:54 UTC