Hello Diane,
Thanks a lot! We'll try to see if there's a way to include this as a reference in our documentation. It will be a technical document essentially neutral on which quality aspects should be measured, but a couple of engaging references could be very useful to have.
By the way our vocabulary may play a role similar to the Data Quality Management voc you had spotted. It will probably be simpler, though (and it seems that this work has not been updated for some years now).
Best,
Antoine
On 8/17/15 7:51 PM, Diane Hillmann wrote:
> Antoine:
>
> Thanks for noting my work with Tom Bruce from several years ago.Tom wrote up an update to it after we'd had a bunch of follow up conversations more recently while working together on another project.
>
> Bruce, Thomas R. Metadata quality in a linked data Context. VOXPOPULII Blog (Cornell Legal Information Institute. Jan. 24, 2013. https://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2013/01/24/metadata-quality-in-a-linked-data-context/
>
>
> I haven't taken a look yet at the new vocabulary, but I will.
>
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Antoine Isaac <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> (apologies for possible cross-posting as this request is sent to a couple of lists with overlapping interests)
>
> The W3C Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group has recently published a first draft for a Data Quality Vocabulary (DQV):
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-vocab-dqv-20150625/
>
> Our goal is to facilitate the publication of data on the quality of datasets published on the Web. We hope such information will be made widely available, so that data re-users can be better guided in their selection of data sources.
>
> Many people on this mailing list have worked on (meta)data quality [1], defining criteria and measures to judge whether a metadata set is fit for purpose.
> This new W3C work is not meant to reproduce all this work.
> We have rather focused on a basic framework to allow people to express the quality observations that are relevant for them, using specific vocabularies defined as DQV extensions or refinements. We consider that such a common framework would make varied quality assessments better comparable - and usable.
>
> This draft is still open for comments, from editorial remarks to deep criticism. The group is very keen on receiving any form of 'feedback from the market', before developing this vocabulary further.
>
> Comments can be either posted here, or sent to the dedicated W3C mailing list [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>.
> The three co-editors (cc'ed) are also willing to receive personal emails, should you not be sure that your feedback is fit for open publication!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Antoine Isaac
> --
> R&D Manager, Europeana.eu
>
> [1] A 2004 paper by Thomas Bruce and Diane Hillmann with one of the best openers I've seen on this topic comes straight to mind (http://hdl.handle.net/1813/7895) but there are dozens of other really relevant contributions in the DC community...
>
>
|