Re: bugs in 5.10 Express the quality of a linkset

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