Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

Data quality schedule

From Data on the Web Best Practices

Jump to: navigation, search

Milestone/Activity	Target date(s)	What needs to be done	persons
Editors update vocabulary draft	April 1st 2016	Editors update vocabulary draft	Everyone
Update the ontology file	April 7th 2016	This is the more formal part of the voc spec	Editors
Vote on Working Note	April 8th 2016	Vote on DQV	Everyone
Post-publication work	30 July 2016		Everyone

Remaining issues and prioritization:

Key work required:

to give a guidance on some examples of quality dimensions/categories
- ~~https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/260~~
- ~~https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/261~~
- ~~ISSUE-221 Alignment with http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/hcls/notes/hcls-dataset/~~
  - worst case, we can Postpone the issue saying "We acknowledge the importance of connecting DQV to domain-specific profiles such as the HCLS Community Profile. Exploring these relations requires more work than what we could provide in the Working Group. We postpone this issue considering that relation between DCAT application profiles and DQV is likely to me more extensively addressed in an upcoming working group."

Question from SDW WG on representing precision and accuracy https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/271 (Examples have been double-checked by Andrea Perego (see thread, and the section has been revised by Antoine, the action can be closed)
- ~~An extra example about :spatialResolutionAsAngularDistance has been discussed in [1], should we consider to add it in a future ??~~

~~Question from Pierre-Yves about having content negotiation for DQV: https://twitter.com/pyvandenbussche/status/733631531193884672~~
- Side action would be to create an HTML representation of the voc like https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html. We have it almost already, with the tables: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#VocabularySpecification . In fact creating an HTML representation of the voc would allow us to make the main spec a bit lighter!

~~Less important issues, which we can close quickly when needed, as we have a basic solution~~

Backburner issue, probably to come back to at the last moment

~~https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/263~~
- In fact a big related issue is whether to keep dqv:value only for literal values or to use any resource that looks like a measure, as several have suggested (esp. Zaveri and Dumontier) see also discussion with Andrea

Other "non-official" issues:

~~Do we need both dqv:hasQualityMeasurement and dqv:computedOn?~~
~~Express an axiom relating dqv:hasQualityAnnotation and oa:hasTarget.~~
~~problem with double arrow that is not about inverse property (raised with DUV, we might have some as well, or be careful not to introduce new ones)~~
~~we may (quite unlikely) want to come back to the huge discussion on completeness http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/153~~
we could try and relate results of tests like RDFUnit into DQV. Also tests themselves (as per provenance discussions) [AI: can we consider that this is done by https://github.com/AKSW/RDFUnit/tree/master/rdfunit-w3c-dqv. A warning though: I have not checked their implementation. Riccardo, have you?]

Navigation menu