Re: New dqv:inDimension

Hi Riccardo,

In fact,  as a consequence of the inDimension domain removal, the foaf profile you have mentioned  is not  becoming a metric,  If someone wants  it  as a  metric,  she/he must instantiate  it as dqv:Metric ..

In your reply, you implied that the inDimension property will still have the dqv:Metric concept as its domain.

If you are using inDimension alone you are basically saying "I have something which might be connected to a quality dimension",  that's it ..

That is pretty big assumption which would make the quality metadata largely subject to different interpretations. Not sure that quality metadata (which should be of high quality) will benefit from that.


I think inDimension domain should be restricted, and future quality stuff, should adhere to that restriction. Otherwise if we allow anyone to do anything in the DQV I’m afraid that we will end up with low quality, quality metadata.

It is not that anyone can do anything, when the stuff about quality is of one the foreseen types ( annotations, metrics, quality policies, standards), our  DQV document explains how it should be made fitting  ;)

Theoretically, yes. Anyone can do anything with an open domain. This is said with the same reasoning that lightweight vocabularies (like daQ) cannot put constraints on for example the fact a metric exists in one and only one dimension, even though the document explains it.

Therefore, considering all these points, I vote against having an open domain for the inDimension property, and I urge you to really reconsider this design.

Cheers,
Jer