Fwd: New dqv:inDimension

FWD this mail as It was the last related to action 258,
[1]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/258


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Debattista, Jeremy <Jeremy.Debattista@iais.fraunhofer.de>
Date: 1 April 2016 at 17:03
Subject: Re: New dqv:inDimension
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>


Hi Antoine,

> The main value is to enable a classification of any quality information
(not just metrics) against a same dimension space. We believe this is
really useful. For example there can be a quality certificate that is
mostly about the 'accessibility' dimension.
> This would be hindered if the domain dqv:inDimension is retricted to
dqv:Metric. This would imply that e.g. a QualityCertificate will be
classified as a Metric if we apply dqv:inDimension to it. And Certificates
are not Metrics. To void this we would have to create in DQV other 'clones'
of dqv:inDimension with other domains, which is really bad ontological
design.
>
> Again, our point is really to allow to apply dqv:inDimension to things
that are not Metrics. From this perspective, removing the domain seems the
most natural thing to do.

This is a fair point, but then IIRC you could use owl unionOf, to make the
inDimension flexible, yet focused on quality aspects … especially if we
have a set of classes that we see fit in the quality metadata

dqv:inDimension rdfs:domain  [  a  owl:Class ;
                            owl:unionOf  ( dqv:Metric
dqv:QualityCertificate ... )
] ;

> There is the risk of being able to apply dqv:inDimension to thing that
are less relevant to quality, like foaf:Profile, indeed. There is a risk
here, but honestly I don't think it's important.

I think that it is important. I think it will be useless to have quality
metadata which is of poor quality because of irrelevant information. My
point is that the meta model should be focused.

> Plus, the current open-world semantics of rdfs:domain actually doesn't
prevent applying inDimension to foaf:Profile, even if we keep the domain.
And who knows, some instances of types of resource that we thought were
irrelevant for quality may end up being good for quality classification.
> So the question is: does this choice prevent you to make relevant things?
> I fail to understand what we miss if we remove the domain. You mention
the ability to constrain the cardinality of dqv:inDimension on certain
resources. This is a valid requirement, but the presence or absence of
domain doesn't influence anything here.

It does not prevent you to make relevant things, but neither does it
prevents someone to make irrelevant things - and the latter is the problem
I find. As I said, I’m afraid that at the end we might run in the risk of
producing quality metadata, which in itself is of poor quality. At the
moment I still cannot find any motivating use case where the DQV (and
subsequent metadata) would benefit with having an open domain for
inDimension (or any other property)

> Considering your example, i.e. you want to say that a metric exists in
one and only one dimension.
> This is done by creating a new subclass of dqv:Metric with the axioms
> [
> ex:MetricInOnlyOneDimension rdfs:subClassOf dqv:Metric ;
>   rdfs:subClassOf [ rdf:type  owl:Restriction ;
>      owl:maxCardinality  "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
>      owl:onProperty dqv:inDimension
>    ] .
> ]
> What's the impact of removing the domain of dqv:inDimension on these
axioms?
>

>From my understanding of ontologies, that would be perfectly good as the
domain of inDimension (if the domain is restricted) with a dqv:Metric
restriction, as the example metric is a subclass of dqv:Metric.

I would really like to hear what others think about this issue.

Cheers,
Jer



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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://www.imati.cnr.it/>*
http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf