ISSUE-190: "official" DQV reqs vs the implementation of our best practices (cf. the "5 stars" thread).
"official" DQV reqs vs the implementation of our best practices (cf. the "5 stars" thread).
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Quality & Granularity Vocabulary
- Raised by:
- Antoine Isaac
- Opened on:
- 2015-06-12
- Description:
- We have to confirm whether the scope of DQV work is indeed "official" DQV reqs specified in the "requirement section" or if we should go beyond, e.g., reflecting the quality of the vocabulary (re-)used, access to datasets, metadata and more generally the implementation of our best practices (cf. the "5 stars" thread).
The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic metadata may help making choices here. For example, DQV could be defined wrt. intrinsic properties of the datasets, not extrinsic properties (let alone properties of the metadata for a dataset!) - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- ISSUE 190 (from albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it on 2016-01-29)
- dwbp-ISSUE-190: "official" DQV reqs vs the implementation of our best practices (cf. the "5 stars" thread). [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-06-12)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: We can handle new use cases but we're not forced to (for DQV)
https://www.w3.org/2016/01/29-dwbp-minutes
Display change log
