- From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:49:25 +0200
- To: glenn mcdonald <gmcdonald@furia.com>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Glenn and all, greetings. On 2011 Apr 9, at 03:10, glenn mcdonald wrote: > I don't think data quality is an amorphous, aesthetic, hopelessly subjective > topic. Data "beauty" might be subjective, and the same data may have > different applicability to different tasks, but there are a lot of obvious > and straightforward ways of thinking about the quality of a dataset > independent of the particular preferences of individual beholders. Here are > just some of them: This is an excellent list. I think only a minority of these qualities could be scored precisely, but I think all of them could be scored on some awful-to-excellent scale, so that while they may not be quite objective metrics, they're at least clearly debatable. Complete objectivity is probably impossible here -- inevitable in a world where the concept of 'Rome' means significantly different things to the local authority, the ancient historian, and the tourist board. But 'solves my problem well' is a pretty good substitute. Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2011 07:49:51 UTC