W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Help with Data Quality example

From: Riccardo Albertoni <riccardo.albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 17:58:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmTXvu2MHFUZiO21B9BK9aFcDuS7CpxmcFMZKe+QLyFezQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Dear BP Editors,

Unfortunately, the values should be associated to Metrics not dimensions,
as  you can have more than one metric for the same dimension,

 I would  consider to change the Human readable example, as in the following

a) In the section "Data Quality values", you can add the metric
description, for example,
(Measured ??)  Dimension |   (Deployed ??)  Metric    |  value  |
Availability | dcat:downloadURL is available and if its value is
dereferenceable| True (boolean)
Completeness | Ratio between the number of objects represented in the cvs
and the number of objects expected to be represented according to the
declared dataset scope. |  0.5 (Double)

b) in section "Quality Dimensions and Metrics", you can change the  section
title in "Quality Dimensions", and  you can delete the metric column in the
table. It should result in something like,
Dimension |   Definition
Completeness | Refers to the degree to which all required information is
present in a particular dataset.
Availability | Availability of a dataset is the extent to which data (or
some portion of it) is present, obtainable and ready for use.

The above solution is perhaps less  appealing, but it is closer to the data
quality vocabulary model.
Does it work for you?


On 4 May 2016 at 17:17, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:

> Dear DQV editors,
> We are making the final updates on the DWBP document and we'd like to ask
> your help with the human-readable version of the data quality metadata [1].
> We made some changes on the html page with the human-readable metadata and
> we changed the way that the data quality metadata is presented. Now the
> values of the data quality dimensions are part of the description of the
> CSV distribution. Please, take a look and tell us if this makes sense.
> We also noticed that the description of dimensions and metrics is general
> and maybe could be in another page rather than in the dataset page. Does it
> make sense for you or do you think its better to keep these descriptions
> together with the dataset description?
> Looking forward to your feedback!
> Thanks,
> BP Editors
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-example.html
> --
> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
> Centro de Informática
> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to be
> clean.

Riccardo Albertoni
Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
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.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni>
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 15:59:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:51 UTC