- From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:04:39 +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, Good to hear that now it is clearer. Editorial changes and corrections are always welcome :) Cheers, Riccardo On 29 July 2016 at 14:48, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Riccardo, > > Thanks! > I may do a couple of minor editorial changes later today, but it looks > considerably clearer for me! > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > > On 27/07/16 18:55, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: >> >> 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 Friday, 29 July 2016 13:05:11 UTC