This
document
provides
a
framework
in
which
the
quality
of
a
dataset
can
be
described,
whether
by
the
dataset
publisher
or
by
a
broader
community
of
users.
It
does
not
provide
a
formal,
complete
definition
of
quality,
rather,
it
sets
out
a
consistent
means
by
which
information
can
be
provided
such
that
a
potential
user
of
a
dataset
can
make
his/her
own
judgment
about
its
fitness
for
purpose.
Status of This Document
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at https://www.w3.org/TR/.
This
document
presents
the
most
mature
version
of
the
Data
Quality
Vocabulary
that
could
be
produced
in
the
lifespan
of
the
Data
on
the
Web
Best
Practices
Working
Group
.
At
time
of
publication,
its
main
components
have
remained
stable
for
several
months,
even
after
receiving
feedback
and
suggestions
from
the
community.
We
expect
however
that
further
clarifications
and
extensions
of
this
model
may
be
carried
out
by
future
working
groups,
considering
requirements
from
specific
domains
or
applications.
This
document
was
published
by
the
Data
on
the
Web
Best
Practices
Working
Group
as
a
Working
Group
Note.
If
you
wish
to
make
comments
regarding
this
document,
please
send
them
to
public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
(
subscribe
,
archives
).
All
comments
are
welcome.
Publication
as
a
Working
Group
Note
does
not
imply
endorsement
by
the
W3C
Membership.
This
is
a
draft
document
and
may
be
updated,
replaced
or
obsoleted
by
other
documents
at
any
time.
It
is
inappropriate
to
cite
this
document
as
other
than
work
in
progress.
This
document
was
produced
by
a
group
operating
under
the
5
February
2004
W3C
Patent
Policy
.
W3C
maintains
a
public
list
of
any
patent
disclosures
made
in
connection
with
the
deliverables
of
the
group;
that
page
also
includes
instructions
for
disclosing
a
patent.
An
individual
who
has
actual
knowledge
of
a
patent
which
the
individual
believes
contains
Essential
Claim(s)
must
disclose
the
information
in
accordance
with
section
6
of
the
W3C
Patent
Policy
.
This
document
is
governed
by
the
1
September
2015
W3C
Process
Document
.
Publication as a Working Group Note does not imply endorsement by the W3C
Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in
progress.
Status
of
This
Document
This
section
describes
the
status
of
this
document
at
the
time
of
its
publication.
Other
documents
may
supersede
this
document.
A
list
of
current
W3C
publications
and
the
latest
revision
of
this
technical
report
can
be
found
in
the
W3C
technical
reports
index
at
https://www.w3.org/TR/.
Table
of
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Namespaces
3.
Vocabulary
Overview
4.
Vocabulary
specification
4.1
Class:
Quality
Measurement
4.2
Class:
Metric
4.3
Class:
Dimension
4.4
Class:
Category
4.5
Class:
Quality
Measurement
Dataset
4.6
Class:
Quality
Policy
4.7
Class:
Quality
Annotation
4.8
Class:
Quality
Certificate
4.9
Class:
User
Quality
Feedback
4.10
Class:
Quality
Metadata
4.11
Property:
In
Dimension
4.12
Property:
Conforms
To
4.13
Property:
Has
Quality
Measurement
4.14
Property:
Has
Quality
Metadata
4.15
Property:
Has
Quality
Annotation
4.16
Property:
Was
Derived
From
4.17
Instance:
Quality
Assessment
4.18
Instance:
Precision
5.
Note
on
documenting
resources
expressed
with
DQV
6.
Example
Usage
6.1
Express
a
quality
assessment
with
quality
metrics
6.2
Document
the
provenance
of
the
quality
metadata
6.3
Document
the
provenance
of
single
quality
measurements
6.4
Document
the
provenance
of
a
dataset
6.5
Express
that
a
dataset
received
an
ODI
certificate
6.6
Express
a
question
about
dataset
quality
6.7
Express
that
a
dataset
fits
in
a
quality
classification
6.8
Express
derivation
between
quality
metrics,
measurements
and
annotations
6.9
Express
quality
of
SKOS
concept
schemes
6.10
Express
the
quality
of
a
linkset
6.11
Express
the
conformance
of
a
dataset's
metadata
with
a
standard
6.12
Express
the
conformance
of
a
dataset
with
a
quality
policy
6.13
Express
dataset
precision
and
accuracy
7.
Dimensions
and
metrics
hints
7.1
Statistics
7.2
Quality
dimensions
defined
in
ISO/IEC
25012
7.3
Quality
dimensions
defined
for
Linked
Data
7.4
Examples
of
metrics
8.
Requirements
A.
Acknowledgements
B.
Change
history
C.
Correspondences
between
quality
dimensions
in
ISO/IEC
25012
and
Zaveri
et
al.
D.
Defining
and
using
parameters
for
metrics
D.1
Modeling
parameters
D.2
Parameter
constraints
E.
Compatibility
with
RDF
Data
Cube
F.
References
F.1
Informative
references
This
vocabulary
does
not
seek
to
determine
what
"quality"
means.
We
believe
that
quality
lies
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder;
that
there
is
no
objective,
ideal
definition
of
it.
Some
datasets
will
be
judged
as
low-quality
resources
by
some
data
consumers,
while
they
will
perfectly
fit
others'
needs.
In
accordance,
we
attach
a
lot
of
importance
to
allowing
many
actors
to
assess
the
quality
of
datasets
and
publish
their
annotations,
certificates,
opinions
about
a
dataset.
A
dataset's
publisher
should
seek
to
publish
metadata
that
helps
data
consumers
determine
whether
they
can
use
the
dataset
to
their
benefit.
However,
publishers
should
not
be
the
only
ones
to
have
a
say
on
the
quality
of
data
published
in
an
open
environment
like
the
Web.
Certification
agencies,
data
aggregators,
data
consumers
can
make
relevant
quality
assessments,
too.
We
want
to
stimulate
this
by
making
it
easier
to
publish,
exchange
and
consume
quality
metadata,
for
every
step
of
a
dataset's
lifecycle.
This
is
why
next
to
rather
expected
constructs
like
quality
measurements,
the
Data
Quality
Vocabulary
puts
an
emphasis
on
feedback,
annotation,
policies
and
certificates.
DQV
draws
inspiration
from
and
is
aligned
with
existing
work
on
representing
data
quality,
notably
the
daQ
ontology
for
representing
information
(especially
metrics)
on
the
quality
of
linked
open
datasets
[
DaQ
].
[DaQ].
daQ
is
itself
anchored
in
the
RDF
Data
Cube
framework
for
publishing
statistical
data
[
Vocab-Data-Cube
].
[Vocab-Data-Cube].
Note
that
DQV
elements
can
be
applied
not
only
to
express
metadata
on
the
quality
of
datasets;
they
can
also
be
used
to
express
statements
about
the
quality
of
that
metadata
itself.
This
is
especially
true
when
it
comes
to
representing
the
provenance
of
that
metadata
or
its
conformance
with
respect
to
established
metadata
standards.
A
list
of
DQV-related
implementations
including
references
to
vocabulary
extending
DQV,
tools
serializing
quality
results
in
DQV,
portals
exposing
data
quality
in
DQV,
and
papers
citing
the
DQV,
is
maintained
at
the
DQV
Implementation
wiki
page
.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
the
editors
if
you
have
any
implementation
to
report.
2.
2.
Namespaces
The
namespace
for
DQV
is
http://www.w3.org/ns/dqv#
.
DQV,
however,
seeks
to
re-use
elements
from
other
vocabularies,
notably
DCAT
,
following
the
best
practices
for
data
vocabularies
identified
by
the
Data
on
the
Web
Best
Practices
Working
Group.
The
table
below
indicates
the
full
list
of
namespaces
and
prefixes
used
in
this
document.
Prefix
Namespace
daq
http://purl.org/eis/vocab/daq#
dcat
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#
dcterms
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
dqv
http://www.w3.org/ns/dqv#
duv
http://www.w3.org/ns/duv#
oa
http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#
prov
http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
sdmx-attribute
http://purl.org/linked-data/sdmx/2009/attribute#
skos
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
3.
3.
Vocabulary
Overview
The
following
vocabulary
is
based
on
DCAT
[
vocab-dcat
]
[vocab-dcat]
that
it
extends
with
a
number
of
additional
properties
and
classes
suitable
for
expressing
the
quality
of
a
dataset.
The
quality
of
a
given
dataset
or
distribution
is
assessed
via
a
number
of
observed
properties.
For
instance,
one
may
consider
a
dataset
to
be
of
high
quality
because
it
conforms
to
a
specific
standard
while
for
other
use-cases
the
quality
of
the
data
will
depend
on
its
level
of
interlinking
with
other
datasets.
To
express
these
properties
an
instance
of
a
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
can
be
related
to
five
different
types
of
quality
information
represented
by
the
following
classes:
dqv:QualityAnnotation
represents
feedback
and
quality
certificates
given
about
the
dataset
or
its
distribution.
dcterms:Standard
represents
a
standard
the
dataset
or
its
distribution
conforms
to.
dqv:QualityPolicy
represents
a
policy
or
agreement
that
is
chiefly
governed
by
data
quality
concerns.
dqv:QualityMeasurement
represents
a
metric
value
providing
quantitative
or
qualitative
information
about
the
dataset
or
distribution.
prov:Entity
represents
an
entity
involved
in
the
provenance
of
the
dataset
or
distribution.
DQV
defines
quality
measures
as
specific
instances
of
Quality
Measurements,
adapting
the
daQ
quality
framework
[
DaQ
],
[
DaQ-RDFCUBE
].
[DaQ],
[DaQ-RDFCUBE].
It
relies
on
quality
dimensions
and
quality
metrics.
A
Quality
Dimension
(
dqv:Dimension
)
is
a
quality-related
characteristic
of
a
dataset
relevant
to
the
consumer
(e.g.,
the
availability
of
a
dataset).
A
Quality
Metric
(
dqv:Metric
)
gives
a
procedure
for
measuring
a
data
quality
dimension,
which
is
abstract,
by
observing
a
concrete
quality
indicator.
There
are
usually
multiple
metrics
per
dimension;
e.g.,
availability
can
be
indicated
by
the
accessibility
of
a
SPARQL
endpoint,
or
that
of
an
RDF
dump.
The
value
of
a
metric
can
be
numeric
(e.g.,
for
the
metric
“human-readable
labeling
of
classes,
properties
and
entities”,
the
percentage
of
entities
having
an
rdfs:label
or
rdfs:comment
)
or
boolean
(e.g.,
whether
or
not
a
SPARQL
endpoint
is
accessible).
Besides
quality
measurements,
DQV
considers
certificates,
standards,
and
quality
policies,
which
can
also
be
organized
according
to
dimensions.
Quality
metadata
containers
(
dqv:QualityMetadata
)
can
group
together
different
quality
statements,
so
that
their
provenance
can
be
tracked
jointly.
Fig. 1Fig.
1
Data
model
showing
the
main
relevant
classes
and
their
relations.
N.B.:
"containment"
refers
to
the
inclusion
of
quality
statements
into
"containers",
which
may
or
may
not
be
treated
as
(RDF)
graphs
(see
later
example
and
the
usage
note
for
the
class
dqv:QualityMetadata
).
Quality
information
can
be
derived
from
other
quality
information.
For
example,
a
quality
annotation
can
be
derived
from
a
standard
or
a
quality
measurement.
Quality
measurements
can
be
derived
from
other
measurements.
Metrics
can
be
derived
from
other
metrics.
A
standard
can
be
built
on
another
standard
or
a
(set
of)
metrics.
DQV
models
such
derivations
through
the
property
prov:wasDerivedFrom
as
illustrated
in
the
diagram
below.
Fig. 2Fig.
2
Using
the
property
prov:wasDerivedFrom
to
interrelate
quality
metrics
and
other
quality
statements.
Some
properties
from
third-party
vocabularies
like
Dublin
Core
[
Dublin-Core
],
[Dublin-Core],
RDF
Data
Cube
[
Vocab-Data-Cube
]
[Vocab-Data-Cube]
and
Web
Annotation
[
WebAnnotation
]
[WebAnnotation]
are
included
here
in
order
to
make
the
document
more
self-contained
and
better
readable.
The
definitions
of
these
properties
are
copied
from
their
original
specifications
and
the
way
these
properties
should
be
used
in
the
context
of
Data
Quality
Vocabulary
is
explained
in
the
DQV
usage
notes.
Indicates
the
dataset
to
which
a
quality
measurement
(which
is
an
RDF
Data
Cube
observation)
belongs.
This
is
not
the
dataset
whose
quality
is
being
measured,
which
is
indicated
by
dqv:computedOn
.
Refers
to
the
resource
(e.g.,
a
dataset,
a
linkset,
a
graph,
a
set
of
triples)
on
which
the
quality
measurement
is
performed.
In
the
DQV
context,
this
property
is
generally
expected
to
be
used
in
statements
in
which
objects
are
instances
of
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
.
Represents
a
standard
to
measure
a
quality
dimension.
An
observation
(instance
of
dqv:QualityMeasurement
)
assigns
a
value
in
a
given
unit
to
a
Metric.
Represents
criteria
relevant
for
assessing
quality.
Each
quality
dimension
must
have
one
or
more
metric
to
measure
it.
A
dimension
is
linked
with
a
category
using
the
dqv:inCategory
property.
Categories
are
meant
to
systematically
organize
dimensions.
The
Data
Quality
Vocabulary
defines
no
specific
cardinality
constraints
for
dqv:inCategory
,
since
distinct
quality
frameworks
might
have
different
perspectives
over
a
dimension.
A
dimension
may
therefore
be
associated
to
more
than
one
category.
However,
those
who
define
new
quality
metrics
should
try
to
avoid
this
as
much
as
possible
and
assign
only
one
category
to
the
dimensions
they
define.
Dimension
and
category
are
abstract
entities.
We
represent
instances
dqv:Dimension
and
dqv:Category
as
instances
of
skos:Concept
,
which
we
think
enable
similar
features
as
these
for
dimensions
and
categories
in
daQ.
Our
representation
choice
differs
significantly
for
metrics,
however.
daQ
uses
RDFS/OWL
classes
and
subclasses
so
as
to
represent
constraints
on
measurements
(e.g.,
on
the
type
of
values).
RDFS/OWL
does
not
allow
one
to
fully
capture
all
constraints.
Additionally,
other
languages
are
being
defined
to
represent
constraints
in
more
appropriate
ways.
We
think
it
is
therefore
not
appropriate
now
to
recommend
to
treat
specific
metrics
as
subclasses
of
dqv:Metric,
and
we
refer
implementers
to
future
progress
on
SHACL
and
related
technology.
See
Appendix
"Defining
and
using
parameters
for
metrics"
for
further
discussion.
In
DQV,
each
dataset
of
quality
measurements
is
an
RDF
Cube
DataSet.
This
property
can
be
used
to
indicate
the
RDF
Data
structure
definition
a
dataset
of
quality
measurements
is
expected
to
comply
with.
This
property
is
used
to
attach
an
instance
of
dqv:QualityPolicy
to
a
dataset,
a
linkset,
a
graph,
a
set
of
triples,
etc.
In
the
DQV
context,
this
property
is
generally
expected
to
be
used
in
statements
in
which
objects
are
instances
of
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
.
Represents
quality
annotations,
including
ratings,
quality
certificates
or
feedback
that
can
be
associated
to
datasets
or
distributions.
Quality
annotations
must
have
one
oa:motivatedBy
statement
with
an
instance
of
oa:Motivation
(and
skos:Concept
)
that
reflects
a
quality
assessment
purpose.
We
define
this
instance
as
dqv:qualityAssessment
.
This
property
is
used
in
DQV
to
connect
an
instance
of
dqv:QualityAnnotation
or
its
subclasses
(
dqv:QualityCertificate
and
dqv:UserQualityFeedback
)
to
the
resource
the
annotation
is
about.
Any
kind
of
resource
(e.g.,
a
dataset,
a
linkset,
a
graph,
a
set
of
triples)
could
be
a
target.
However,
in
the
DQV
context,
this
property
is
generally
expected
to
be
used
in
statements
in
which
objects
are
instances
of
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
.
The
Web
Annotation
Vocabulary
[
WebAnnotation
]
[WebAnnotation]
is
intended
as
a
W3C
Recommendation,
but
it
is
still
under
development
at
the
time
of
publishing
this
Note.
We
have
made
our
best
to
consider
the
latest
version
available,
but
changes
might
take
place
until
it
becomes
a
formal
Recommendation.
For
example,
new
kinds
of
annotation
body
might
be
included
and
supersede
the
types
we
have
considered
in
DQV.
For
this
reason,
we
invite
readers
to
check
examples
in
this
Note
with
the
latest
version
of
the
Web
Annotation
Vocabulary.
An
annotation
that
associates
a
resource
(especially,
a
dataset
or
a
distribution)
to
another
resource
(for
example,
a
document)
that
certifies
the
resource's
quality
according
to
a
set
of
quality
assessment
rules.
Future
DQV
versions
may
opt
for
renaming
this
class.
The
current
name
is
a
little
misleading,
as
it
hints
that
instances
of
this
class
are
quality
certificates
rather
than
annotations
pointing
to
quality
certificates.
Feedback
is
welcome!
Represents
feedback
that
users
have
on
the
quality
of
datasets
or
distributions.
Besides
dqv:qualityAssessment
,
which
is
the
motivation
required
by
all
quality
annotations,
one
of
the
predefined
instances
of
oa:Motivation
should
be
indicated
as
motivation
to
distinguish
among
the
different
kinds
of
feedback,
e.g.,
classifications,
questions.
QualityMetadata
containers
do
not
necessary
include
all
types
of
quality
statements
DQV
can
support.
Implementers
decide
the
granularity
of
containment.
In
the
current
version
of
DQV,
we
also
leave
open
the
choice
of
the
containment
"technique".
Implementers
can
use
(RDF)
graph
containment
.
They
may
also
use
an
appropriate
property
of
their
choice
—
for
example
(a
subproperty
of)
dcterms:hasPart
—
to
link
instances
of
dqv:QualityMetadata
with
instances
of
other
DQV
classes.
Generation
is
the
completion
of
production
of
a
new
entity
by
an
activity.
This
entity
did
not
exist
before
generation
and
becomes
available
for
usage
after
this
generation.
Dimensions
are
meant
to
systematically
organize
metrics,
quality
certificates
and
quality
annotations.
The
Data
Quality
Vocabulary
defines
no
specific
cardinality
constraints
for
dqv:inDimension,
since
distinct
quality
frameworks
might
have
different
perspectives
over
a
metric.
A
metric
may
therefore
be
associated
to
more
than
one
dimension.
However,
those
who
define
new
quality
metrics
should
try
to
avoid
this
as
much
as
possible
and
assign
only
one
dimension
to
the
metrics
they
define.
More
than
one
dimension
can
be
indicated
for
each
quality
annotation
or
certificate.
Refers
to
the
performed
quality
measurements.
Quality
measurements
can
be
performed
to
any
kind
of
resource
(e.g.,
a
dataset,
a
linkset,
a
graph,
a
set
of
triples).
However,
in
the
DQV
context,
this
property
is
generally
expected
to
be
used
in
statements
in
which
subjects
are
instances
of
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
.
Refers
to
a
grouping
of
quality
information
such
as
certificates,
policies,
measurements
and
annotations
as
a
named
graph.
Quality
information
represented
in
such
a
grouping
can
pertain
to
any
kind
of
resource
(e.g.,
a
dataset,
a
linkset,
a
graph,
a
set
of
triples).
However,
in
the
DQV
context,
this
property
is
generally
expected
to
be
used
in
statements
in
which
subjects
are
instances
of
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
.
Refers
to
a
quality
annotation.
Quality
annotation
can
be
applied
to
any
kind
of
resource,
e.g.,
a
dataset,
a
linkset,
a
graph,
a
set
of
triples.
However,
in
the
DQV
context,
this
property
is
generally
expected
to
be
used
in
statements
in
which
subjects
are
instances
of
dcat:Dataset
or
dcat:Distribution
.
A
derivation
is
a
transformation
of
an
entity
into
another,
an
update
of
an
entity
resulting
in
a
new
one,
or
the
construction
of
a
new
entity
based
on
a
pre-existing
entity.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
expresses
a
quite
abstract
relation
of
derivation.
More
specialized
relations
of
derivation
can
be
defined
as
subproperties
of
prov:wasDerivedFrom,
whenever
this
is
required
by
applications.
Whenever
DQV
implementers
need
to
extend
the
motivations
for
quality
annotations,
they
should
follow
the
instructions
provided
by
the
Web
Annotation
Data
Model,
and
the
concepts
in
the
extension
should
be
defined
as
specializations
of
dqv:qualityAssessment
.
Precision
is
a
quality
dimension,
which
refers
to
the
recorded
level
of
details.
It
represents
the
exactness
of
a
measurement
or
description.
It
is
equivalent
the
notion
of
Precision
from
ISO
25012.
5.
Note
on
documenting
resources
expressed
with
DQV
The
above
section
presents
the
most
important
classes
and
properties
that
DQV
uses
to
represent
quality-related
metadata.
I.e.,
these
are
the
elements
needed
to
express
the
machine-readable
information
that
DQV-aware
data
consumers
can
exploit
for
their
processes.
However,
in
many
cases
extra
human-readable
information
is
also
needed,
e.g.,
to
provide
(multilingual)
definitions
and
labels
or
just
more
context
for
the
quality
measurements,
metrics,
etc.
that
are
expressed
with
the
core
DQV
classes.
:currentnessMeasurement a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:value "false"^^xsd:boolean
dcterms:description “The triples in the dataset are outdated” .
6.
6.
Example
Usage
This
section
shows
some
examples
to
illustrate
the
application
of
the
Dataset
Quality
Vocabulary.
NB:
in
the
remainder
of
this
section,
the
prefix
"
:
"
refers
to
http://example.org/
6.1
6.1
Express
a
quality
assessment
with
quality
metrics
Let
us
consider
a
dataset
:myDataset
,
and
its
distribution
:myDatasetDistribution
,
:myDataset
a dcat:Dataset ;
dcterms:title ;
dcterms:title "My dataset" ;
dcat:distribution :myDatasetDistribution
.
:myDatasetDistribution
a dcat:Distribution ;
dcat:downloadURL <http:
dcterms:title ;
dcat:mediaType ;
dcat:byteSize ^^xsd:decimal
dcat:downloadURL <http://www.example.org/files/mydataset.csv> ;
dcterms:title "CSV distribution of dataset" ;
dcat:mediaType "text/csv" ;
dcat:byteSize "87120"^^xsd:decimal
.
An
automated
quality
checker
has
provided
a
quality
assessment
with
two
(CSV)
quality
measurements
for
:myDatasetDistribution
.
:myDatasetDistribution
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement :measurement1, :measurement2
.
;
;
;
:measurement1
a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:computedOn :myDatasetDistribution ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :downloadURLAvailabilityMetric ;
dqv:value "true"^^xsd:boolean
.
;
;
;
:measurement2
a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:computedOn :myDatasetDistribution ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :csvCompletenessMetric ;
dqv:value "0.5"^^xsd:double
.
;
;
;
#definition of dimensions and metrics
:availability
a dqv:Dimension ;
skos:prefLabel "Availability"@en ;
skos:definition "Availability of a dataset is the extent to which data (or some
portion of it) is present, obtainable and ready for use."@en ;
dqv:inCategory :accessibility
.
;
;
;
:completeness
a dqv:Dimension ;
skos:prefLabel "Completeness"@en ;
skos:definition "Completeness refers to the degree to which all required information
is present in a particular dataset."@en ;
dqv:inCategory :intrinsicDimensions
.
;
;
;
:downloadURLAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It checks if dcat:downloadURL is available and if its value is
dereferenceable."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean ;
dqv:inDimension :availability
.
;
;
;
:csvCompletenessMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between the number of objects represented in the csv and the
number of objects expected to be represented according to the declared dataset
scope."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double ;
dqv:inDimension :completeness
.
Categories
and
dimensions
might
be
more
extensively
defined,
see
in
the
section
'Dimensions
and
metrics
hints'
for
further
examples.
Any
quality
framework
is
free
to
define
its
own
dimensions
and
categories.
6.2
6.2
Document
the
provenance
of
the
quality
metadata
The
results
of
metrics
obtained
in
the
previous
assessment
are
stored
in
the
:myQualityMetadata
graph.
# :myQualityMatadata is a graph
:myQualityMetadata {
:myDatasetDistribution
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement :measurement1, :measurement2
.
# The graph contains the rest of the statements presented in the previous example.
}
# :myQualityMetadata has been created by :myQualityChecker and it is the result of the
# :myQualityChecking activity
:myQualityMetadata
a dqv:QualityMetadata ;
prov:wasAttributedTo :myQualityChecker ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2015-05-27T02:52:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy :myQualityChecking .
# :myQualityChecker is a service computing some quality metrics
:myQualityChecker
a prov:SoftwareAgent ;
rdfs:label "A quality assessment service"^^xsd:string .
# Further details about quality service/software can be provided, for example,
# deploying vocabularies such as Dataset Usage Vocabulary (DUV), Dublin Core or ADMS.SW
# :myQualityChecking is the activity that has generated :myQualityMetadata from
# :myDatasetDistribution
:myQualityChecking
a prov:Activity;
rdfs:label "The checking of myDatasetDistribution's quality"^^xsd:string;
prov:wasAssociatedWith :myQualityChecker;
prov:used :myDatasetDistribution;
prov:generated :myQualityMetadata;
prov:endedAtTime "2015-05-27T02:52:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime;
prov:startedAtTime "2015-05-27T00:52:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime
.
6.3
6.3
Document
the
provenance
of
single
quality
measurements
The
group
has
discussed
provenance
at
different
levels
of
granularity
(dqv:QualityMeasurement
and
dqv:QualityMetadata).
In
the
previous
example
we
have
shown
how
to
track
provenance
at
the
level
of
quality
metadata
as
a
whole.
In
the
following,
we
provide
an
example
of
provenance
for
a
single
quality
measurement,
:myMeasurement
.
:myDatasetDistribution
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement :myMeasurement .
# :myMeasurement has been created by :myQualityChecker and it is the result of the
# :myQualityChecking activity
:myMeasurement
a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:computedOn :myDatasetDistribution ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :downloadURLAvailabilityMetric ;
dqv:value "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
prov:wasAttributedTo :myQualityChecker ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2015-05-27T02:52:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy :myQualityChecking
.
:downloadURLAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Checks if dcat:downloadURL is available and if its value is
dereferenceable."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean ;
dqv:inDimension :availability .
# :myQualityChecker is a service computing some quality metrics
:myQualityChecker
a prov:SoftwareAgent ;
rdfs:label "A quality assessment service"^^xsd:string .
# Further details about quality service/software can be provided, for example,
# deploying vocabularies such as Dataset Usage Vocabulary (DUV), Dublin Core or ADMS.SW
# :myQualityChecking is the activity that has generated :myMeasurement from :myDatasetDistribution
:myQualityChecking
a prov:Activity;
rdfs:label "The checking of myDatasetDistribution's quality"^^xsd:string;
prov:wasAssociatedWith :myQualityChecker;
prov:used :myDatasetDistribution;
prov:generated :myMeasurement;
prov:endedAtTime "2015-05-27T02:52:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime;
prov:startedAtTime "2015-05-27T00:52:02Z"^^xsd:dateTime .
6.4
6.4
Document
the
provenance
of
a
dataset
Statements
similar
to
the
ones
applied
to
the
resource
:myQualityMetadata
above
can
be
applied
to
the
resource
:myDataset
to
indicate
the
provenance
of
the
dataset.
I.e.,
a
dataset
can
be
generated
by
a
specific
software
agent,
be
generated
at
a
certain
time,
etc.
The
HCLS
Community
Profile
for
describing
datasets
provides
further
examples.
6.5
6.5
Express
that
a
dataset
received
an
ODI
certificate
Let
us
express
that
an
ODI
certificate
for
the
"City
of
Raleigh
Open
Government
Data"
dataset
is
available
at
the
URL
<https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/393/certificate>.
Let
us
ask
a
question
about
the
completeness
of
the
"City
of
Raleigh
Open
Government
Data"
dataset.
<https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/> a dcat:Dataset ;
<https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/393> a dcat:Dataset ;
dqv:hasQualityAnnotation :questionQA .
:questionQA
a dqv:UserQualityFeedback ;
oa:hasTarget <https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/> ;
oa:hasTarget <https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/393> ;
oa:hasBody :textBody ;
oa:motivatedBy dqv:qualityAssessment, oa:questioning ;
dqv:inDimension :completeness
.
:textBody a oa:TextualBody ;
rdf:value "Could you please provide information about the completeness of your
dataset?" ;
dc:language ;
dc:format
rdf:value "Could you please provide information about the completeness of your
dataset?" ;
dc:language "en" ;
dc:format "text/plain"
.
6.7
6.7
Express
that
a
dataset
fits
in
a
quality
classification
Let
us
express
that
the
"City
of
Raleigh
Open
Government
Data"
dataset
is
classified
as
a
four
stars
dataset
against
the
5
Stars
Linked
Open
Data
rating
system.
a dcat:Dataset ;
<https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/393> a dcat:Dataset ;
dqv:hasQualityAnnotation :classificationQA .
:classificationQA
a dqv:UserQualityFeedback ;
oa:hasTarget ;
oa:hasTarget <https://certificates.theodi.org/en/datasets/393> ;
oa:hasBody :four_stars ;
oa:motivatedBy dqv:qualityAssessment, oa:classifying ;
dqv:inDimension :availability .
:four_stars
a skos:Concept;
skos:inScheme :OpenData5Star ;
skos:prefLabel "Four stars"@en ;
skos:definition "Dataset available on the web with structured machine-readable non
proprietary format. It uses URIs to denote things."@en .
6.8
6.8
Express
derivation
between
quality
metrics,
measurements
and
annotations
DQV
models
derivation
with
the
property
prov:wasDerivedFrom
.
For
example,
the
accessibility
of
the
dataset
:myDataset
can
be
derived
from
the
accessibility
of
its
distributions
:myCSVDatasetDistribution
and
:mySPARQLDatasetDistribution
.
:myDataset
a dcat:Dataset ;
dcterms:title "My dataset" ;
dcat:distribution :myCSVDatasetDistribution, :mySPARQLDatasetDistribution
.
:myCSVDatasetDistribution
a dcat:Distribution ;
dcat:downloadURL ;
dcat:downloadURL <http://www.example.org/files/mydataset.csv> ;
dcterms:title "CSV distribution of dataset" ;
dcat:mediaType "text/csv" ;
dcat:byteSize "87120"^^xsd:decimal
.
:mySPARQLDatasetDistribution
a dcat:Distribution ;
dcat:accessURL
dcat:accessURL <http://www.example.org/sparql>
dcterms:title "SPARQL access to the dataset" ;
dcat:mediaType "application/sparql-results+json"
.
# definition of dimensions and metrics
:availability
a dqv:Dimension ;
skos:prefLabel "Availability"@en ;
skos:definition "Availability of a dataset is the extent to which data (or some
portion of it) is present, obtainable and ready for use."@en ;
dqv:inCategory :accessibility
.
:downloadURLAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Checks if dcat:downloadURL is available and if its value
is dereferenceable."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean ;
dqv:inDimension :availability
.
:SPARQLAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Checks if an URL specified in dcat:accessURL is available
and if at that URL a SPARQL endpoint is active."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean ;
dqv:inDimension :availability
.
:datasetAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
prov:wasDerivedFrom :downloadURLAvailabilityMetric, :SPARQLAvailabilityMetric;
skos:definition "Checks the availabitity of the specified distributions."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean ;
dqv:inDimension :availability
.
Depending
on
the
specific
application
context,
the
expression
of
this
derivation
can
be
kept
at
level
of
the
quality
measurements.
In
the
following,
the
measurement
:measurement3
of
:myDataset
's
availability
is
derived
from
:measurement1
and
:measurement2
.
The
classification
of
:myDataset
as
:three_stars
can
be
derived
from
the
result
of
a
quality
measurement
:measurement2
.
:myDataset
dqv:hasQualityAnnotation :myDatasetClassification .
;
;
;
;
;
:myDatasetClassification
a dqv:UserQualityFeedback ;
prov:wasDerivedFrom :measurement2 ;
oa:hasTarget :myDataset ;
oa:hasBody :three_stars ;
oa:motivatedBy dqv:qualityAssessment, oa:classifying ;
dqv:inDimension :availability
.
;
;
;
:three_stars
a skos:Concept;
skos:inScheme :OpenData5Star ;
skos:prefLabel "three stars"@en ;
skos:definition "Dataset available on the web with structured machine-readable
non proprietary format."@en
.
6.9
6.9
Express
quality
of
SKOS
concept
schemes
Let’s
consider
:myControlledVocabulary
,
a
controlled
vocabulary
made
available
on
the
Web
using
the
SKOS
[
SKOS-reference
]
[SKOS-reference]
and
DCAT
[
vocab-dcat
].
[vocab-dcat].
:myControlledVocabulary
a dcat:Dataset ;
dcterms:title
dcterms:title "My controlled vocabulary"
.
:myControlledVocabularyDistribution
a dcat:Distribution ;
dcat:downloadURL <http:
dcterms:title ;
dcat:mediaType ;
dcat:byteSize ^^xsd:decimal
dcat:downloadURL <http://www.example.org/files/myControlledVocabulary.ttl> ;
dcterms:title "SKOS/RDF distribution of my controlled vocabulary" ;
dcat:mediaType "text/turtle" ;
dcat:byteSize "190120"^^xsd:decimal
.
qSKOS
is
an
open
source
tool,
which
detects
quality
issues
affecting
SKOS
vocabularies
[
qSKOS
].
[qSKOS].
It
considers
26
quality
issues
including,
for
example,
“Incomplete
Language
Coverage”
and
“Label
Conflicts”
which
are
grouped
in
the
category
“Labeling
and
Documentation
issues”.
Quality
issues
addressed
by
qSKOS
can
be
considered
as
DQV
quality
dimensions,
whilst
the
number
of
concepts
in
which
a
quality
issue
occurs
can
be
the
metric
deployed
for
each
quality
dimension.
#
# .
# definition of instances for some of the metrics, dimensions and categories deployed
# in qSKOS.
;
;
;
;
:numOfConceptsWithLabelConflicts
a dqv:Metric;
skos:prefLabel "Conflicting concepts"@en ;
skos:definition "Number of concepts having conflicting labels"@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:interger ;
dqv:inDimension :LabelConflicts
.
;
;
;
;
.
:numOfConceptsWithIncompleteLanguageCoverage
a dqv:Metric;
skos:prefLabel "Language incomplete concepts"@en ;
skos:definition "Number of concepts having an incomplete language coverage"@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:interger ;
dqv:inDimension :incompleteLanguageCoverage .
;
;
;
.
:LabelConflicts
a dqv:Dimension;
skos:prefLabel "Label Conflicts"@en ;
skos:definition "Dimension corresponding to the label conflicts quality issue"@en ;
dqv:inCategory :labelingDocumentationIssues .
;
;
;
.
:incompleteLanguageCoverage
a dqv:Dimension;
skos:prefLabel "Incomplete Language Coverage"@en ;
skos:definition "Dimension corresponding to the incomplete language coverage
issue"@en ;
dqv:inCategory :labelingDocumentationIssues .
;
;
:labelingDocumentationIssues
a dqv:Category ;
skos:prefLabel "Labeling and Documentation Issues"@en ;
skos:definition "Category grouping labeling and documentation issues"@en
.
DQV
represents
the
qSKOS
quality
assessment
on
:myControlledVocabulary
for
the
dimensions
“Incomplete
Language
Coverage”
and
“Label
Conflicts”.
(VoID)
linksets
are
collections
of
(RDF)
links
between
two
datasets:
the
linkset's
subject
and
the
linkset's
object,
containing
respectively
the
subjects
and
objects
of
all
link
statements.
Linksets
are
as
important
as
datasets
when
it
comes
to
the
joint
exploitation
of
datasets
served
independently
in
Linked
Data.
The
representation
of
quality
for
a
linkset
is
another
example
of
how
DQV
can
be
exploited.
Let’s
define
three
DCAT
datasets,
including
one
VoID
linkset,
which
connects
a
subject
dataset
to
an
object
dataset
named
respectively
by
void:subjectsTarget
and
by
void:objectsTarget
:
;
1"
:myDataset1
a dcat:Dataset ;
dcterms:title "My dataset 1"
.
;
2"
:myDataset2
a dcat:Dataset ;
dcterms:title "My dataset 2"
.
;
2";
;
;
:myLinkset
a dcat:Dataset, void:Linkset ;
dcterms:title "A Linkset from My dataset 1 to My dataset 2";
void:linkPredicate skos:exactMatch ;
void:subjectsTarget :myDataset1 ;
void:objectsTarget :myDataset2
.
We
can
represent
information
about
the
quality
of
:myLinkset
using
the
“Multilingual
importing”
quality
metric
[
MultilingualImporting
].
[MultilingualImporting].
This
metric
applies
to
linksets
between
datasets
that
include
SKOS
concepts
[
SKOS-reference
].
[SKOS-reference].
It
considers
the
concepts
that
have
been
matched
and
quantifies
the
information
gain
the
links
provide
if
one
adds
the
preferred
labels
or
the
alternative
labels
of
the
concepts
from
the
object
dataset
to
the
descriptions
of
the
concepts
from
the
subject
dataset.
Let
us
first
define
the
proper
metric,
dimension
and
category.
# .
# Definition of instances for Metric, Dimension and Category.
;
:importingForPropertyPercentage
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between novel preferred or alternative labels
gained from the object dataset via skos:exactMatch links and the preferred or
alternative labels that are in the subject and object datasets."@en
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double ;
.
dqv:inDimension :completeness .
;
;
;
:completenessGain
a dqv:Dimension ;
skos:prefLabel "Completeness Gain"@en ;
skos:definition "Degree to which a linkset
contribute to add relevant information to a particular dataset."@en ;
dqv:inCategory :complementationGain
.
;
:complementationGain
a dqv:Category ;
skos:definition "Category that groups dimensions measuring the data quality gain
obtained by exploiting linksets."@en
.
The
quality
assessment
of
the
"label
importing"
depends
on
two
extra
parameters:
:onProperty
and
:onLanguage
,
which
are
respectively,
the
SKOS
property
and
the
language
tag
considered
for
measuring
the
completeness
gains.
We
add
the
following
statements
to
represent
these
parameters
(note
that
type
qb:DimensionProperty
and
the
range
definitions
are
firstly
needed
for
compatibility
with
RDF
Data
Cube
).
;
;
;
;
:onLanguage
a qb:DimensionProperty, owl:DataProperty ;
rdfs:comment "Language on which label importing is assessed."@en ;
rdfs:domain dqv:QualityMeasurement;
rdfs:label "Label import assessment language"@en ;
rdfs:range xsd:string
.
;
;
;
;
:onProperty
a qb:DimensionProperty, rdf:Property ;
rdfs:comment "Property on which label importing is assessed."@en ;
rdfs:domain dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
rdfs:label "Label import assessment property"@en ;
rdfs:range rdf:Property
.
Let
us
add
actual
quality
assessments
for
alternative
and
preferred
labels
in
Italian
and
English:
##
;
;
;
;
;
" ;
.
## for Italian alternative labels
:measurement_exactMatchAltLabelIt
a dqv:QualityMeasurement;
dqv:computedOn :myLinkset ;
dqv:value "1.0"^^xsd:double ;
dcterms:date "2016-01-10"^^xsd:date ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :importingForPropertyPercentage ;
:onLanguage "it" ;
:onProperty skos:altLabel .
##
;
;
;
;
;
" ;
.
## for English alternative labels
:measurement_exactMatchAltLabelEn
a dqv:QualityMeasurement;
dqv:computedOn :myLinkset ;
dqv:value "0.1"^^xsd:double ;
dcterms:date "2016-01-10"^^xsd:date;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :importingForPropertyPercentage ;
:onLanguage "en" ;
:onProperty skos:altLabel .
##
;
;
;
;
;
" ;
.
## for Italian preferred labels
:measurement_exactMatchPrefLabelIt
a dqv:QualityMeasurement;
dqv:computedOn :myLinkset ;
dqv:value "0.5"^^xsd:double ;
dcterms:date "2016-01-10"^^xsd:date ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :importingForPropertyPercentage ;
:onLanguage "it" ;
:onProperty skos:prefLabel .
##
;
;
;
;
;
" ;
.
## for English preferred labels
:measurement_exactMatchPrefLabelEn
a dqv:QualityMeasurement;
dqv:computedOn :myLinkset ;
dqv:value "1"^^xsd:double ;
dcterms:date "2016-01-10"^^xsd:date ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :importingForPropertyPercentage ;
:onLanguage "en" ;
:onProperty skos:prefLabel .
6.11
6.11
Express
the
conformance
of
a
dataset's
metadata
with
a
standard
It
is
often
desirable
to
indicate
that
metadata
about
datasets
in
a
catalogue
are
compliant
with
a
metadata
standard,
or
an
application
profile
of
an
existing
metadata
standard.
A
typical
example
is
the
GeoDCAT
Application
Profile
[
GeoDCAT-AP
],
[GeoDCAT-AP],
an
extension
of
the
DCAT
vocabulary
[
vocab-dcat
]
[vocab-dcat]
to
represent
metadata
for
geospatial
data
portals.
GeoDCAT-AP
allows
one
to
express
that
a
dataset's
metadata
conforms
to
an
existing
standard,
following
the
recommendations
of
ISO
19115,
ISO
19157
and
the
EU
INSPIRE
directive.
DCAT
partly
supports
the
expression
of
such
metadata
conformance
statements.
The
following
example
illustrates
how
a
(DCAT)
catalog
record
can
be
said
to
be
conformant
with
the
GeoDCAT-AP
standard
itself.
:myDataset a dcat:Dataset .
:myDatasetRecord a dcat:CatalogRecord ;
foaf:primaryTopic :myDataset ;
dcterms:conformsTo :geoDCAT-AP .
:geoDCAT-AP a dcterms:Standard;
dcterms:title ;
dcterms:comment "GeoDCAT-AP is developed in the context of the Interoperability
Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) Programme"@en;
dcterms:issued ^^xsd:date ;
dcterms:title "GeoDCAT Application Profile. Version 1.0" ;
dcterms:comment "GeoDCAT-AP is developed in the context of the Interoperability
Solutions for European Public Administrations (ISA) Programme"@en;
dcterms:issued "2015-12-23"^^xsd:date ;
foaf:page
<https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/geodcat-ap-v1>
<https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/geodcat-ap-v10>
.
Note
that
this
example
does
not
include
the
metadata
about
the
dataset
:myDataset
itself.
We
assume
this
is
present
in
an
RDF
data
source
accessible
via
the
URI
:myDatasetRecord
.
We
also
assume
that
:geoDCAT-AP
is
a
reference
URI
that
denotes
the
GeoDCAT-AP
standard,
which
can
be
re-used
across
many
catalog
record
descriptions,
not
just
a
locally
introduced
URI.
Note
Note
Finer-grained
representation
of
conformance
statements
can
be
found
in
the
literature,
and
applications
with
more
complex
requirements
may
implement
them,
including
for
example
the
requirement
of
representing
'non-conformance'
tested
by
specific
procedures.
The
GeoDCAT
Application
Profile,
for
example,
suggests
a
"provisional
mapping"
for
extended
profiles,
which
re-uses
the
PROV
data
model
for
provenance
(see
Annex
II.14
at
[
GeoDCAT-AP
]).
[GeoDCAT-AP]).
Such
patterns
come
however
at
the
cost
of
having
to
publish
and
exchange
representations
that
are
much
more
elaborate.
They
will
also
have
to
be
aligned
with
the
result
of
another
ongoing
efforts
on
data
validation
and
the
reporting
thereof,
as
currently
discussed
around
SHACL,
for
example.
We
have
thus
decided
to
postpone
addressing
these
requirements
for
now.
6.12
6.12
Express
the
conformance
of
a
dataset
with
a
quality
policy
DQV
introduces
the
class
dqv:QualityPolicy
to
express
that
a
Dataset
or
Distribution
follows
a
policy
or
agreement
that
is
chiefly
defined
by
data
quality
concerns.
DQV
does
not
provide
a
complete
framework
for
expressing
policies.
The
class
dqv:QualityPolicy
is
rather
meant
as
an
anchor
point,
through
which
DQV
implementers
can
relate
properties
and
classes
of
policy-dedicated
vocabularies,
such
as
ODRL
[
ODRL
],
[ODRL],
to
the
core
elements
that
define
quality
of
datasets
and
distributions.
The
example
below
specifies
that
a
data
provider
grants
the
permission
to
access
a
dataset
and
commits
to
serve
the
data
with
a
certain
quality,
more
concretely,
99%
availability
of
a
SPARQL
endpoint
(distribution)
associated
with
the
dataset.
This
is
expressed
in
ODRL
as
an
offer
with
a
duty
on
the
service
provider
that
states
a
constraint
defined
using
a
DQV
metric
(
:sparqlEndpointUptime
),
for
which
measurements
have
to
be
greater
than
a
certain
percentage
(99).
The
odrl:assigner
is
the
issuer
of
the
policy
statement;
it
is
also
the
assignee
of
the
duty
to
deliver
the
distribution
as
the
policy
requires
it.
There
is
no
explicitly
mentioned
recipient
for
the
policy
itself,
since
this
examples
is
about
a
generic
data
access
scenario.
Note
that
instances
of
dqv:QualityPolicy
could
be
instances
of
the
class
odrl:Agreement
,
in
which
case
an
odrl:assignee
is
likely
to
appear
for
the
policy.
:serviceProvider a odrl:Party .
:myDataset a dcat:Dataset ;
dcat:distribution :myDatasetSparqlDistribution ;
:myDatasetSparqlDistribution a dcat:Distribution .
:policy1 a odrl:Offer, dqv:QualityPolicy ;
odrl:permission [
a odrl:Permission ;
odrl:target :myDataset ;
odrl:action odrl:read ;
odrl:assigner :serviceProvider;
odrl:duty [
a odrl:Duty;
odrl:assignee :serviceProvider;
odrl:target :myDatasetSparqlDistribution ;
odrl:constraint [
a odrl:Constraint ;
prov:wasDerivedFrom :sparqlEndpointUptime;
odrl:percentage ^^xsd:double ;
odrl:percentage "99"^^xsd:double ;
odrl:operator odrl:gteq
]
]
]
.
Note
Note
The
expression
of
constraints
in
ODRL
seems
quite
unfit
with
expressing
general
constraints
on
values
in
RDF
graphs,
as
we
would
require
here.
However,
ODRL
can
be
easily
extended,
and
is
schedule
to
undergo
refinement
in
the
context
of
the
W3C
Permissions
&
Obligations
Expression
Working
Group
.
In
the
future
implementers
should
investigate
whether
a
general
constraint
expression
language
like
the
coming
SHACL
[
SHACL
]
[SHACL]
provides
a
more
appropriate
mechanism
to
be
used
on
top
of
ODRL
permissions
and
duties.
6.13
6.13
Express
dataset
precision
and
accuracy
The
need
for
documenting
data
precision
(also
sometimes
referred
to
as
"resolution")
is
a
common
requirement,
in
particular,
when
dealing
with
spatial
data.
The
following
example
shows
how
DQV
can
meet
this
requirement.
:myDataset a dcat:Dataset ;
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement :myDatasetPrecision, :myDatasetAccuracy .
:myDatasetPrecision a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :spatialResolutionAsDistance ;
dqv:value ^^xsd:decimal ;
sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure <http:
dqv:value "1000"^^xsd:decimal ;
sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure <http://www.wurvoc.org/vocabularies/om-1.8/metre>
.
:spatialResolutionAsDistance a dqv:Metric;
skos:definition @en ;
skos:definition "Spatial resolution of a dataset expressed as distance"@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:decimal ;
dqv:inDimension dqv:precision
.
Precision
can
be
alternatively
expressed
without
unit
of
measure
specifying
spatial
resolution
by
means
of
an
"equivalent
scale"
with
a
fraction
(e.g.,
1:1,000,
1:1,000,000)
;
.
:myDataset a dcat:Dataset;
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement :myDatasetPrecisionES .
;
;
:myDatasetPrecisionES a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :spatialResolutionAsEquivalentScale ;
dqv:value "0.000001"^^xsd:decimal
.
;
,
;
;
:spatialResolutionAsEquivalentScale a dqv:Metric;
skos:definition "Spatial resolution of a dataset expressed as equivalent scale,
by using a representative fraction (e.g., 1:1,000, 1:1,000,000)."@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:decimal ;
dqv:inDimension dqv:precision
.
or
specifying
the
angular
distance.
:myDataset a dcat:Dataset;
dqv:hasQualityMeasurement :myDatasetPrecisionAS .
:myDatasetPrecisionAS a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :spatialResolutionAsAngularDistance ;
dqv:value ^^xsd:decimal ;
sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure <http:
dqv:value "3.5"^^xsd:decimal ;
sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure <http://www.wurvoc.org/vocabularies/om-1.8/degree> .
:spatialResolutionAsAngularDistance a dqv:Metric;
skos:definition @en ;
skos:definition "Spatial resolution of a dataset expressed as angular distance"@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:decimal ;
dqv:inDimension dqv:precision
.
Note
that
the
precision
(or
resolution)
of
a
dataset
is
not
equivalent
to
its
accuracy.
High
precision
values
are
not
necessarily
accurate.
High
precision
values
can
even
be
pointless,
as
when
one
asserts
that
Magna
Carta
was
signed
at
1215-06-15T00:00:00
.
Accuracy
is
nonetheless
an
important
dimension
of
data
quality.
Data
accuracy
metrics
and
measurements
can
be
represented
with
DQV,
as
in
the
following
example:
:myDatasetAccuracy a dqv:QualityMeasurement ;
dqv:isMeasurementOf :spatialAccuracy ;
dqv:value ^^xsd:decimal
sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure <http://www.wurvoc.org/vocabularies/om-/Percentage>
dqv:value "98.2"^^xsd:decimal
sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure <http://www.wurvoc.org/vocabularies/om-1.8/Percentage>
.
:spatialAccuracy a dqv:Metric;
skos:definition "Percentage of spatial elements that are found accurate
according to methodology XYZ"@en ;
skos:definition "Percentage of spatial elements that are found accurate
according to methodology XYZ"@en ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:decimal ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:semanticAccuracy
.
7.
7.
Dimensions
and
metrics
hints
This
section
gathers
relevant
quality
dimensions
and
ideas
for
corresponding
metrics,
which
might
be
eventually
represented
as
instances
of
dqv:Category
,
dqv:Dimension
and
dqv:Metric
.
The
goal
of
the
Data
Quality
Vocabulary
is
not
to
define
a
normative
list
of
dimensions
and
metrics.
There
are
already
several
reference
classifications
available,
which
are
the
result
of
a
lot
of
community
work.
Unifying
them
here
seems
both
hard
and
not
desirable,
as
fundamental
approaches
to
quality
vary
between
domains
or
even
applications.
This
section
provides
instead
a
set
of
examples,
starting
from
use
cases
included
in
the
Use
Cases
&
Requirements
document
.
In
particular,
we
offer
the
quality
dimension
proposed
in
ISO
25012
[
ISOIEC25012
]
[ISOIEC25012]
and
Zaveri
et
al.
[
ZaveriEtAl
]
[ZaveriEtAl]
as
two
starting
points.
Ultimately,
implementers
will
need
to
choose
themselves
the
approach
that
fits
best
their
needs.
They
can
extend
on
these
starting
points,
creating
their
own
refinements
of
categories
and
dimensions,
and
of
course
their
own
metrics.
They
can
mix
existing
approaches
—
we
show
that
the
proposals
from
ISO
and
Zaveri
et
al.
are
not
completely
disjoint.
Implementers
can
also
adopt
completely
different
classifications,
if
existing
ones
do
not
fit
their
specific
application
scenarios.
They
should
however
be
aware
that
relying
on
existing
classifications
and
metrics
increases
interoperability,
i.e.,
the
chance
that
human
and
machine
agents
can
properly
understand
and
exploit
their
quality
assessments.
7.1
7.1
Statistics
Statistics
are
not
systematically
conceived
as
quality
measures.
Yet,
statistics
on
datasets
can
be
seen
as
quality
indicators
relevant
for
the
dimensions
listed
in
the
rest
of
this
section.
For
instance,
the
percentages
of
empty
string
attributes
and
of
URIs
that
do
not
point
to
any
useful
information
(either
directly
in
the
published
data
or
via
HTTP
content
negotiation)
can
indicate
quality
issues
for
compliance
or
completeness.
These
indicators
can
be
published
as
such
or
aggregated
with
other
statistics
into
further
refined
quality
assessments,
using
the
pattern
with
prov:wasDerivedFrom
presented
in
the
"Vocabulary
Overview"
section.
The
following
table
gives
examples
of
statistics
that
can
be
computed
on
a
dataset
and
interpreted
as
quality
indicators
for
completeness
and
understandability,
coming
from
the
VoID
extension
created
for
the
Aether
tool
.
We
invite
readers
interested
in
statistics
to
investigate
whether
elements
coming
from
Aether
or
similar
efforts
can
match
their
needs.
Number
of
distinct
external
resources
used
(including
schema
terms)
http://ldf.fi/void-ext#distinctIRIReferences
Number
of
distinct
literals
http://ldf.fi/void-ext#distinctLiterals
Number
of
languages
used
http://ldf.fi/void-ext#languages
Note
Note
The
Aether
VoID
extension
represents
statistics
as
direct
statements
that
have
a
dataset
as
subject
and
an
integer
as
object.
This
pattern,
which
can
be
expected
to
be
rather
common,
is
different
from
the
pattern
that
DQV
inherits
from
daQ.
Guidance
on
how
DQV
can
work
with
other
quality
statistics
vocabulary
shall
be
provided
with
future
versions
of
the
DQV
documentation.
7.2
7.2
Quality
dimensions
defined
in
ISO/IEC
25012
ISO/IEC
25012
provides
an
example
of
quality
dimensions
grouped
in
three
categories
that
can
be
adopted
to
document
the
quality
of
datasets.
These
quality
dimensions
and
categories
are
listed
in
the
table
below.
Category
Dimension
Definition
Inherent
Data
Quality
Accuracy
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
correctly
represent
the
true
value
of
the
intended
attribute
of
a
concept
or
event
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Completeness
The
degree
to
which
subject
data
associated
with
an
entity
has
values
for
all
expected
attributes
and
related
entity
instances
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Consistency
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
are
free
from
contradiction
and
are
coherent
with
other
data
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
It
can
be
either
or
both
among
data
regarding
one
entity
and
across
similar
data
for
comparable
entities.
Credibility
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
are
regarded
as
true
and
believable
by
users
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Credibility
includes
the
concept
of
authenticity
(the
truthfulness
of
origins,
attributions,
commitments).
Currentness
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
are
of
the
right
age
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Inherent
and
System-Dependent
Data
Quality
Accessibility
The
degree
to
which
data
can
be
accessed
in
a
specific
context
of
use,
particularly
by
people
who
need
supporting
technology
or
special
configuration
because
of
some
disability.
Compliance
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
adhere
to
standards,
conventions
or
regulations
in
force
and
similar
rules
relating
to
data
quality
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Confidentiality
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
ensure
that
it
is
only
accessible
and
interpretable
by
authorized
users
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Confidentiality
is
an
aspect
of
information
security
(together
with
availability,
integrity)
as
defined
in
ISO/IEC
13335-1:2004.
Efficiency
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
can
be
processed
and
provide
the
expected
levels
of
performance
by
using
the
appropriate
amounts
and
types
of
resources
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Precision
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
are
exact
or
that
provide
discrimination
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Traceability
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
provide
an
audit
trail
of
access
to
the
data
and
of
any
changes
made
to
the
data
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Understandability
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
enable
it
to
be
read
and
interpreted
by
users,
and
are
expressed
in
appropriate
languages,
symbols
and
units
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Some
information
about
data
understandability
are
provided
by
metadata.
System-Dependent
Data
Quality
Availability
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
enable
it
to
be
retrieved
by
authorized
users
and/or
applications
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Portability
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
enable
it
to
be
installed,
replaced
or
moved
from
one
system
to
another
preserving
the
existing
quality
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
Recoverability
The
degree
to
which
data
has
attributes
that
enable
it
to
maintain
and
preserve
a
specified
level
of
operations
and
quality,
even
in
the
event
of
failure,
in
a
specific
context
of
use.
DQV
can
express
the
dimensions
and
categories
listed
in
the
table
above.
The
following
example
includes
only
an
exemplification
of
the
ISO
dimensions
and
categories,
which
could
be
authoritatively
provided
by
ISO.
Semantic
relation
defined
in
SKOS
can
be
exploited
to
related
categories
and
dimensions.
For
example,
in
the
following,
skos:broader
has
been
exploited
to
define
iso:inherentSystemDependentDataQuality
as
a
specialization
of
iso:inherentDataQuality
and
iso:systemDependentDataQuality
.
#
# definition of ISO categories
;
.
iso:inherentDataQuality a dqv:Category ;
skos:prefLabel "Inherent Data Quality"@en.
iso:systemDependentDataQuality a dqv:Category ;
.
skos:prefLabel "System-Dependent Data Quality"@en.
iso:inherentSystemDependentDataQuality a dqv:Category ;
.
skos:prefLabel "Inherent and System-Dependent Data Quality"@en.
skos:broader iso:inherentDataQuality, iso:systemDependentDataQuality .
# definition of ISO dimensions
iso:accuracy a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
dqv:inCategory iso:inherentDataQuality ;
skos:prefLabel "Accuracy"@en;
skos:definition "The degree to which data has attributes that correctly represent
the true value of the intended attribute of a concept or event in a specific context
of use."@en
.
iso:completeness a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
dqv:inCategory iso:inherentDataQuality ;
skos:prefLabel "Completeness"@en;
skos:definition "The degree to which subject data associated with an entity has
values for all expected attributes and related entity instances in a specific context
of use."@en
.
iso:consistency a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
.
dqv:inCategory iso:inherentDataQuality ;
skos:prefLabel "Consistency"@en;
skos:definition "The degree to which data has attributes that are free from
contradiction and are coherent with other data in a specific context of use.
It can be either or both among data regarding one entity and across similar
data for comparable entities."@en
.
# ... ...
iso:accessibility a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
dqv:inCategory iso:inherentSystemDependentDataQuality ;
skos:prefLabel "Accessibility"@en;
skos:definition "The degree to which data can be accessed in a specific context of
use, particularly by people who need supporting technology or special configuration
because of some disability."@en
.
# ... etc ...
7.3
7.3
Quality
dimensions
defined
for
Linked
Data
Zaveri
et
al.
provides
a
review
of
quality
dimensions,
which
is
specifically
suited
for
Linked
Data
[
ZaveriEtAl
].
[ZaveriEtAl].
Category
Dimension
Definition
Accessibility
dimensions
Availability
Availability
of
a
dataset
is
the
extent
to
which
data
(or
some
portion
of
it)
is
present,
obtainable
and
ready
for
use.
Licensing
Licensing
is
defined
as
the
granting
of
permission
for
a
consumer
to
re-use
a
dataset
under
defined
conditions.
Interlinking
Interlinking
refers
to
the
degree
to
which
entities
that
represent
the
same
concept
are
linked
to
each
other,
be
it
within
or
between
two
or
more
data
sources.
Security
Security
is
the
extent
to
which
data
is
protected
against
alteration
and
misuse.
Performance
Performance
refers
to
the
efficiency
of
a
system
that
binds
to
a
large
dataset,
that
is,
the
more
performant
a
data
source
is
the
more
efficiently
a
system
can
process
data.
Intrinsic
dimensions
Syntactic
validity
Syntactic
validity
is
defined
as
the
degree
to
which
an
RDF
document
conforms
to
the
specification
of
the
serialization
format.
Semantic
accuracy
Semantic
accuracy
is
defined
as
the
degree
to
which
data
values
correctly
represent
the
real
world
facts.
Consistency
Consistency
means
that
a
knowledge
base
is
free
of
(logical/formal)
contradictions
with
respect
to
particular
knowledge
representation
and
inference
mechanisms.
Conciseness
Conciseness
refers
to
the
minimization
of
redundancy
of
entities
at
the
schema
and
the
data
level.
Completeness
Completeness
refers
to
the
degree
to
which
all
required
information
is
present
in
a
particular
dataset.
Contextual
dimensions
Relevancy
Relevancy
refers
to
the
provision
of
information
which
is
in
accordance
with
the
task
at
hand
and
important
to
the
users’
query.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness
is
defined
as
the
degree
to
which
the
information
is
accepted
to
be
correct,
true,
real
and
credible.
Understandability
Understandability
refers
to
the
ease
with
which
data
can
be
comprehended
without
ambiguity
and
be
used
by
a
human
information
consumer.
Timeliness
Timeliness
measures
how
up-to-date
data
is
relative
to
a
specific
task.
Representational
dimensions
Representational-conciseness
Representational-conciseness
refers
to
the
representation
of
the
data,
which
is
compact
and
well
formatted
on
the
one
hand
and
clear
and
complete
on
the
other
hand.
formatted.
Interoperability
Interoperability
is
the
degree
to
which
the
format
and
structure
of
the
information
conforms
to
previously
returned
information
as
well
as
data
from
other
sources.
Interpretability
Interpretability
refers
to
technical
aspects
of
the
data,
that
is,
whether
information
is
represented
using
an
appropriate
notation
and
whether
the
machine
is
able
to
process
the
data.
Versatility
Versatility
refers
to
the
availability
of
the
data
in
different
representations
and
in
an
internationalized
way.
DQV
can
express
these
dimensions
and
categories
as
shown
in
the
following
example.
The
encoding
of
all
the
dimensions
and
categories
mentioned
above
can
be
found
at
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ldqd
.
#
# definition of categories from Zaveri et al
;
.
ldqd:accessibilityDimensions a dqv:Category ;
skos:prefLabel "Accessibility"@en.
ldqd:intrinsicDimensions a dqv:Category ;
.
skos:prefLabel "Intrinsic dimensions"@en.
ldqd:contextualDimensions a dqv:Category ;
.
skos:prefLabel "Contextual dimensions"@en.
ldqd:representationalDimensions a dqv:Category ;
.
skos:prefLabel "Representational Dimensions"@en.
#definition of dimensions from Zaveri et al
ldqd:availability
a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
dqv:inCategory ldqd:accessibilityDimensions ;
skos:prefLabel "Availability"@en;
skos:definition "Availability of a dataset is the extent to which data (or some
portion of it) is present, obtainable and ready for use."@en
.
ldqd:licensing
a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
dqv:inCategory ldqd:accessibilityDimensions ;
skos:prefLabel "Licensing"@en;
skos:definition "Licensing is defined as the granting of permission for a consumer to
re-use a dataset under defined conditions."@en
.
ldqd:interlinking
a dqv:Dimension ;
;
;
dqv:inCategory ldqd:accessibilityDimensions ;
skos:prefLabel "Consistency"@en;
skos:definition "Interlinking refers to the degree to which entities that represent
the same concept are linked to each other, be it within or between two or more data
sources."@en
.
# ... etc ...
7.3.1
7.3.1
Expressing
relations
between
quality
dimensions
In
Zaveri
Et
Al.
[
ZaveriEtAl
]
[ZaveriEtAl]
some
dimensions
are
not
completely
independent
and
may
be
related.
These
relationships
can
be
represented
in
DQV
by
using
the
appropriate
SKOS
properties
or
by
specializing
the
SKOS
properties
if
more
specific
semantics
must
be
expressed.
For
example,
ldqd:availability
is
related
to
ldqd:performance
and
ldqd:interlinking
,
whilst
ldqd:semanticAccuracy
is
related
to
ldqd:timeliness
,
ldqd:trustworthiness
,
ldqd:consistency
,
ldqd:syntaticValidity
and
ldqd:completeness
.
,
.
ldqd:availability skos:related ldqd:performance ,
ldqd:interlinking .
,
,
,
.
ldqd:semanticAccuracy skos:related ldqd:timeliness ,
ldqd:trustworthiness , ldqd:consistency ,
ldqd:syntaticValidity , ldqd:completeness ,
ldqd:interlinking .
,
.
ldqd:consistency skos:related ldqd:conciseness ,
ldqd:syntaticValidity , ldqd:interoperability .
,
.
ldqd:interoperability skos:related ldqd:conciseness ,
ldqd:syntaticValidity .
,
.
ldqd:conciseness skos:related ldqd:completeness ,
ldqd:representationalConciseness .
.
ldqd:interpretability skos:related ldqd:versatility .
#
#
# .
# Note: skos:related is a symmetric property, hence from every statement
# ex:subject skos:related ex:object in this example, one can infer that
# the statement ex:object skos:related ex:subject is true.
Dimensions
can
also
be
related
across
different
categorizations.
For
example,
in
the
following,
we
present
two
possible
links
between
dimensions
from
ISO/IEC
25012
[
ISOIEC25012
]
[ISOIEC25012]
and
Zaveri
et
al.
Here
we
assume
that
completeness
is
equivalent
across
both
classifications
and
that
ISO's
credibility
is
one
specific
facet
of
trustworthiness
in
Zaveri
et
al.
(see
Definition
12
in
[
ZaveriEtAl
]).
[ZaveriEtAl]).
We
pencil
more
such
possible
relationships
in
Annex
C.
This
section
presents
examples
of
metrics
inspired
by
those
reviewed
in
Zaveri
et
al.
[
ZaveriEtAl
],
[ZaveriEtAl],
in
order
to
further
illustrate
how
dqv:Metric
can
be
instantiated.
Note
that
they
are
not
all
specific
to
Linked
Data
quality,
as
some
dimensions
in
Zaveri
et
al.
matches
the
dimensions
of
ISO/IEC
25012
(see
previous
sub-section
and
Annex).
Note
Note
These
examples
are
just
some
of
the
possible
ones.
They
show
metrics
for
different
dimensions
and
kinds
of
dataset
distributions.
We
might
consider
reorganizing
examples
around
specific
criteria
(e.g.,
include
at
least
a
metric
for
each
dimension,
or
focus
on
metrics
for
a
specific
kind
of
distribution,
e.g.,
RDF,
JSON,
CSV).
We
might
also
consider
to
add
further
examples
about
derived
metrics,
multivalued
metrics
and
extra
parameters,
once
we
have
solved
the
remaining
issues.
:downloadURLAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It checks if dcat:downloadURL is available and if its value is
dereferenceable."@en ;
skos:definition "It checks if dcat:downloadURL is available and if its value is
dereferenceable."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:availability ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean
.
:sparqlAvailabilityMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It checks if a void:sparqlEndpoint is specified for a dataset and
if the server responds to a SPARQL query."@en ;
skos:definition "It checks if a void:sparqlEndpoint is specified for a dataset and
if the server responds to a SPARQL query."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:availability ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean
.
:misreportedContentTypeMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It detects whether the HTTP response contains the header field
stating the appropriate content type of the returned file, e.g. application/rdf+xml"@en ;
skos:definition "It detects whether the HTTP response contains the header field
stating the appropriate content type of the returned file, e.g. application/rdf+xml"@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:availability ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean
.
:licensingMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It detects the indication of a license in a the DCAT/VoID
description or in the dataset of a license itself."@en ;
skos:definition "It detects the indication of a license in a the DCAT/VoID
description or in the dataset of a license itself."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:licensing ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean
.
:highThroughput
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It represents the maximum number of answered HTTP-requests per
second."@en ;
skos:definition "It represents the maximum number of answered HTTP-requests per
second."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:performance ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:integer
.
:sparqlScalability
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It detects whether the time to answer an amount of ten requests
divided by ten is not longer than the time it takes to answer one request."@en ;
skos:definition "It detects whether the time to answer an amount of ten requests
divided by ten is not longer than the time it takes to answer one request."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:performance ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:boolean
.
:noRDFSyntaxError
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It returns the number of syntax errors detected by an RDF
validator."@en ;
skos:definition "It returns the number of syntax errors detected by an RDF
validator."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:syntacticValidity;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:integer
.
:noJSONSyntaxError
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "It returns the number of syntax errors detected by an JSON
validator."@en ;
skos:definition "It returns the number of syntax errors detected by an JSON
validator."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:syntacticValidity;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:integer
.
:populationCompletenessMetric
a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between the number of objects represented in the dataset and
skos:definition "Ratio between the number of objects represented in the dataset and
the number of objects expected to be represented according to the declared dataset
scope."@en ;
scope."@en ;
dqv:inDimension ldqd:completeness ;
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double
.
R-DataMissingIncomplete:
'Publishers
should
indicate
if
data
is
partially
missing
or
if
the
dataset
is
incomplete'
R-QualityComparable:
'Data
should
be
comparable
with
other
datasets'
R-Data
should
be
complete:
'Data
should
be
complete'
R-QualityMetrics:
'Data
should
be
associated
with
a
set
of
documented,
objective
and,
if
available,
standardized
quality
metrics.
This
set
of
quality
metrics
may
include
user-defined
or
domain-specific
metrics.'
R-QualityOpinions:
'Subjective
quality
opinions
on
the
data
should
be
supported'
R-GranularityLevels:
'Data
available
at
different
levels
of
granularity
should
be
accessible
and
modeled
in
a
common
way'
The
aforementioned
requirements
have
been
further
elaborated
and
extended
by
new
use
cases
and
examples,
following
discussions
on
the
DWBP
WG's
mailing
list,
wiki
pages
(see
here
and
here
),
as
well
as
external
contributions
during
the
review
process
(see
the
general
list
of
DQV
issues
that
includes
such
external
feedback).
A.
A.
Acknowledgements
The
editors
acknowledge
the
chairs
of
this
Working
Group:
Hadley
Beeman,
Yaso
Córdova,
Deirdre
Lee
and
the
staff
contact
Phil
Archer.
The
editors
also
gratefully
acknowledge
the
contributions
made
to
this
document
by
all
members
of
the
working
group,
specially
the
contributions
received
from
Ghislain
Auguste
Atemezing,
Carlos
Laufer,
Annette
Greiner,
Michel
Dumontier,
Eric
Stephan.
The
editors
would
also
like
to
thank
comments
received
from
non-members
of
this
working
group,
such
as
Andrea
Perego,
Rachel
E.
Heaven,
Linda
van
den
Brink,
Werner
Bailer,
Vladimir
Alexiev,
Jon
Blower,
Guillaume
Duffes,
Davide
Ceolin,
Anisa
Rula.
Refinement
of
Introduction
section.
Review
of
Vocabulary
Specification
section:
further
descriptions
for
properties
(e.g.,
dqv:hasQualityMetadata,
dqv:hasQualityAnnotation
and
dcterms:conformsTo),
usage
notes
and
references
to
examples
have
been
included.
New
section
titled
"Note
on
documenting
resources
expressed
with
DQV".
Refinement
of
example
6.6:
the
example
has
been
made
consistent
with
the
Web
Annotation
Vocabulary
Candidate
Recommendation.
Refinement
Changed
every
occurences
of
example
6.10:
the
example
has
been
simplified,
the
subject
and
object
datasets
have
been
distinguished.
New
appendix
for
compatibility
with
RDF
Data
Cube.
"Data
Usage
Vocabulary"
into
"Dataset
Usage
Vocabulary".
Refinement
of
Revised
the
definition
for
dqv:qualityAssessment.
New
appendix
on
parameters,
correspondences
between
quality
dimensions
in
ISO/IEC
25012
and
re-factoring
of
Zaveri
et
al.
according
to
the
section
on
expressing
linkset
quality.
latest
feedback.
C.
C.
Correspondences
between
quality
dimensions
in
ISO/IEC
25012
and
Zaveri
et
al.
The
dimensions
listed
in
ISO/IEC
25012
[
ISOIEC25012
]
[ISOIEC25012]
and
Zaveri
et
al.
[
ZaveriEtAl
]
[ZaveriEtAl]
are
not
disjoint.
Assuming
that
dimensions
are
expressed
as
instances
of
skos:Concept
,
the
following
table
includes
some
of
the
correspondences
that
can
be
considered
between
these
two
classifications.
Some
metrics
come
with
mandatory
or
optional
parameters
.
Input
parameters
in
particular
play
a
key
role
in
describing
metrics
and
measurements:
their
values
specify
how
a
metric
is
applied
to
obtain
a
measurement.
E.g.,
when
a
quality
metric
is
defined
as
a
general
procedure
that
can
be
applied
to
different
types
of
statement
in
the
dataset,
a
parameter
can
be
used
to
indicate
the
type
a
given
measurement
has
focused
on.
Or
when
various
components
that
contribute
to
a
metric's
computation
can
be
assigned
different
weights.
Section
6.10
presents
examples
of
metrics
with
such
parameters
(
:onLanguage
and
:onProperty
).
During
the
design
of
DQV,
questions
were
raised
about
the
modeling
of
parameters
in
RDF
and
similar
frameworks,
especially
about
expressing
that
some
parameters
can
be
mandatory
for
measurements
of
some
metrics
(see
Issue-223
).
The
Working
Group
has
postponed
the
issue,
as
we
felt
it
was
a
much
less
mature
aspect
of
the
state
of
the
art,
and
the
we
lacked
resource
to
articulate
a
consensual
decision.
This
appendix
presents
some
of
the
options
we
have
considered.
We
welcome
readers'
feedback!
D.1 D.1
Modeling
parameters
The
first
issue
is
the
"meta-modeling"
of
parameters,
especially,
how
properties
such
as
:onLanguage
should
be
represented
using
the
modeling
constructs
of
RDF(S)
and
OWL
[
OWL-primer
].
[OWL-primer].
One
can
mint
a
new
property
:parameterValue
:
.
:onLanguage rdfs:subPropertyOf :parameterValue .
Alternatively,
one
can
create
a
class
of
(parameter)
properties
:ParameterProperty
having
properties
like
:onLanguage
as
instances:
.
:onLanguage a :ParameterProperty .
Both
patterns
allow
to
represent
parameters
for
quality
metrics.
They
have
their
own
strengths
and
weaknesses
in
terms
of
modeling
elegance,
complexity,
etc.
However,
we
could
not
carry
a
full
analysis
and
recommend
a
preferred
approach.
Moreover,
at
the
time
of
publishing
it
is
unclear
whether
using
either
of
them
delivers
crucial
value
to
implementers
interested
in
the
basic
needs
presented
in
Section
6.10
.
Especially,
solutions
for
representing
constraints
using
OWL
axioms
or
Data
Cube's
Data
Structure
Definition,
as
discussed
in
the
next
sub-section,
do
not
seem
to
be
seriously
impacted
by
choosing
either
of
these
two
meta-modeling
approaches,
or
none.
Note
finally
that
one
may
opt
for
a
more
basic
solution
that
avoids
explicit
modeling
parameters
altogether:
hardcoding
parameters
in
the
definition
of
metrics.
Namely,
in
order
to
represent
the
measurement
alternatives
specific
to
languages
(say,
English
or
Italian)
and
types
of
property
(say,
skos:prefLabel
or
skos:altLabel
),
one
could
"split"
original
metrics
like
:importingForPropertyPercentage
into
new
metrics
that
correspond
to
the
relevant
combination
of
parameters,
as
in
the
following:
;
:importingForPropertyPercentagePrefLabelIt a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between novel Italian preferred labels
gained via skos:exactMatch links and Italian preferred labels
already in the datasets."@en
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double ;
.
dqv:inDimension :completeness .
;
:importingForPropertyPercentagePrefLabelEn a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between novel English preferred labels
gained via skos:exactMatch links and English preferred labels
already in the datasets."@en
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double ;
.
dqv:inDimension :completeness .
;
:importingForPropertyPercentageAltLabelIt a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between novel Italian alternative labels
gained via skos:exactMatch links and Italian alternative labels
already in the datasets."@en
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double ;
.
dqv:inDimension :completeness .
;
:importingForPropertyPercentageAltLabelEn a dqv:Metric ;
skos:definition "Ratio between novel English alternative labels
gained via skos:exactMatch links and English alternative labels
already in the datasets."@en
dqv:expectedDataType xsd:double ;
.
dqv:inDimension :completeness .
This
approach
can
be
useful,
as
seen
at
the
end
of
the
Appendix
on
RDF
Data
Cube
.
It
is
however
much
less
easy
to
implement,
should
the
number
of
parameters
or
the
sets
of
their
possible
values
grow
high,
or,
even
worse,
when
the
sets
of
possible
values
are
not
known
at
data
modeling
stage.
D.2 D.2
Parameter
constraints
The
second
issue
is
the
expression
of
constraints
on
parameter
usage.
For
example,
specifying
that
every
measurement
of
the
metric
:importingForPropertyPercentage
should
be
the
subject
of
an
:onLanguage
statement
that
indicates
the
language
considered
for
the
measurement.
One
solution
is
to
employ
the
modeling
features
of
the
Web
Ontology
Language
OWL
and
create
a
new
(sub-)class
of
dqv:Metric
that
requires
the
presence
of
the
parameter
for
its
instances,
as
in
this
example
based
on
the
case
from
Section
6.10
:
:MetricWithLanguageParameter
rdfs:subClassOf dqv:Metric,
[ a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :onLanguage ;
owl:cardinality ^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
] .
:linksetImportingENSKOSPrefLabel a :MetricWithLanguageParameter ;
skos:definition @en;
:onLanguage .
skos:definition "Importing on English prefLabel"@en;
:onLanguage "en" .
This
solution
can
be
used
for
'meta-parameters',
that
is,
when
one
considers
a
class
of
parameter-dependent
metrics
—
where
assigning
a
value
for
a
parameter
allows
one
to
define
an
individual
metric
in
the
class.
However,
this
case
is
different
from
the
one
of
the
metric
"multilingual
importing"
in
Section
6.10
.
This
metric
indeed
specifies
that
its
measurements
should
be
bound
to
specific
languages.
But
it
does
not
say
which:
the
parameter
value
needs
to
be
assigned
at
the
level
of
the
actual
measurements.
Representing
that
would
require
defining
a
new
class
of
measurements,
say,
:MeasurementWithLanguageParameter
,
as
follows:
# The following statements should be added to the ones from Section 6.10
:MeasurementWithLanguageParameter
rdfs:subClassOf dqv:Measurement,
[ a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty :onLanguage ;
owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
] .
:MetricWithLanguageParameter
rdfs:subClassOf dqv:Metric,
[ a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty [ owl:inverseOf dqv:isMeasurementOf ] ;
owl:allValuesFrom :MeasurementWithLanguageParameter
] .
:importingForPropertyPercentage a :MetricWithLanguageParameter .
:measurement_exactMatchAltLabelItDataset1
dqv:isMeasurementOf :importingForPropertyPercentage .
Implementers
should
note
that
this
pattern
is
impacted
by
OWL's
open-world
assumption
.
The
class
definitions
above
do
not
lead
to
constraints
in
the
"traditional"
understanding!
I.e.,
if
an
OWL
reasoner
finds
a
measurement
of
:importingForPropertyPercentage
without
an
:onProperty
statement,
it
will
not
raise
a
formal
inconsistency
error.
It
will
instead
just
assume
that
the
statement
must
have
been
asserted
in
another
RDF
graph
elsewhere.
Other
approaches
may
be
followed
to
palliate
this.
The
RDF
Data
Cube
vocabulary
offers
a
Data
Structure
Definition
mechanism,
which
we
exemplify
in
the
Appendix
on
RDF
Data
Cube
.
This
solution
allows
a
Data
Cube
validation
tool
to
flag
a
language-less
measurement
of
:importingForPropertyPercentage
as
incomplete.
However,
as
hinted
in
this
Appendix,
Data
Cube's
Data
Structures
are
harder
to
apply
when
quality
assessments
of
different
types
are
mixed
together.
A
general
constraint
expression
language
like
the
coming
SHACL
[
SHACL
]
[SHACL]
may
provide
an
appropriate
solution.
However,
SHACL
is
still
under
development
at
the
time
of
writing
this
document.
E.
E.
Compatibility
with
RDF
Data
Cube
The
RDF
Data
Cube
vocabulary
[
Vocab-Data-Cube
]
[Vocab-Data-Cube]
provides
a
means
to
represent
multi-dimension
data,
including
statistics.
Measurements
represented
in
DQV
can
fit
this
approach,
and
there
might
be
many
benefits
in
representing
them
in
a
way
compatible
with
Data
cube
prescriptions
—
starting
with
the
possibility
to
load
measurement
data
in
visualization
or
processing
tools
compatible
with
Data
Cube.
In
DQV,
instances
of
dqv:QualityMeasurement
are
also
instances
of
Data
Cube's
qb:Observation.
A
dataset
(RDF
graph)
of
DQV
measurements
can
be
made
further
compatible
with
Data
Cube
by
specifying
an
appropriate
(Data
Cube)
Data
Structure
Definition,
following
a
pattern
introduced
by
the
daQ
vocabulary
[
DaQ-RDFCUBE
].
[DaQ-RDFCUBE].
The
following
example
is
aimed
at
representing
measurements
for
the
metrics
capturing
the
quality
of
a
linkset
presented
in
Section
6.10:
:linksetQualityMeasurements a dqv:QualityMeasurementDataset ;
qb:structure ex:dsd .
ex:dsd a qb:DataStructureDefinition ;
## Expressing Data Cube dimensions
qb:component [ qb:dimension dqv:isMeasurementOf ;
qb:order 1
] ;
qb:component [ qb:dimension dqv:computedOn ;
qb:order 2
] ;
qb:component [ qb:dimension dcterms:date ;
qb:order 3
] ;
## Expressing the Data Cube measure
qb:component [ qb:measure dqv:value ; ] ;
## Expressing the Data Cube attribute (here, unit of measurement)
qb:component [ qb:attribute sdmx-attribute:unitMeasure ;
qb:componentRequired false ;
qb:componentAttachment qb:DataSet
] .
Allowing
data
publishers
to
use
the
properties
dqv:isMeasurementOf
and
dqv:computedOn
in
such
data
structures
is
actually
the
reason
why
they
have
been
defined
as
instances
of
qb:DimensionProperty
>.
The
following
statements
represent
the
linking
of
actual
measurements
in
Section
6.10
to
the
dataset
specified
by
the
Data
Structure
Definition:
DQV
users
should
be
aware
that
applying
Data
Cube
Data
Structure
Definitions
to
their
quality
information
datasets
has
a
broad
impact
on
the
possible
content
of
these.
All
resources
that
are
said
to
be
in
the
dataset
(using
the
qb:dataSet
property)
are
indeed
expected
to
have
the
components
defined
as
mandatory
in
the
data
structure!
RDF
Data
Cube
also
states
that
"no
two
qb:Observations
in
the
same
qb:DataSet
may
have
the
same
value
for
all
dimensions".
This
integrity
constraint
implies
that
it
is
not
allowed
to
have
two
distinct
measurements
for
the
same
metric,
resource
and
date.
Metrics
depending
on
parameters
such
as
the
ones
from
Section
6.10
shall
be
used
with
extra
care
so
as
to
adhere
to
this
constraint:
data
publishers
will
probably
need
to
represent
quality
measurements
for
the
same
resource
and
date,
but
which
are
obtained
by
applying
distinct
parameters.
Adopters
of
DQV
and
Data
Cube
can
consider
two
modelling
options
for
addressing
this:
To
extend
the
above
Data
Structure
with
the
desired
parameters;
To
define
a
new
Metric
for
each
combination
of
the
parameters
values.
Let's
apply
the
first
option
to
the
example
of
Section
6.10
.
The
“Multilingual
importing”
metric
there
requires
to
manage
two
parameters,
:onProperty
and
:onLanguage
,
which
gave
raise
to
one
instance
of
owl:DataProperty
each.
These
parameters
can
be
also
expressed
as
instances
qb:DimensionProperty
and
the
above
Data
Structure
extended
as
follows:
## Adding a new type to the parameter properties
:onLanguage a qb:DimensionProperty .
:onProperty a qb:DimensionProperty .
## Extending the structure of daq:dsq with two new dimensions
ex:dsd qb:component [ qb:dimension :onProperty ;
qb:order 4
] ;
qb:component [ qb:dimension :onLanguage ;
qb:order 5
] .
Alternatively,
data
publishers
can
keep
to
the
original
Data
Structure.
But
in
this
case
they
should
be
prepared
to
not
use
the
parameter
properties
introduced
in
6.10.
Instead,
they
could
use
the
"split"
metrics
presented
at
the
end
of
the
Appendix
on
parameters
.
This
solution
is
however
not
always
applicable,
as
this
Appendix
shows
it.
F.
References
F.1
Informative
references
[DaQ]
Jeremy
Debattista;
Christoph
Lange;
Sören
Auer.
daQ,
an
Ontology
for
Dataset
Quality
Information
.
2014.
LDOW
2014.
URL:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1184/ldow2014_paper_09.pdf
[DaQ-RDFCUBE]
Jeremy
Debattista;
Christoph
Lange;
Sören
Auer.
Representing
dataset
quality
metadata
using
multi-dimensional
views
.
2014.
SEMANTICS
2014.
URL:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2468
[Dublin-Core]
DCMI
Usage
Board.
DCMI
Metadata
Terms
.
14
January
2008.
DCMI
Recommendation.
URL:
http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
[GeoDCAT-AP]
ISA
Programme.
GeoDCAT-AP:
A
geospatial
extension
for
the
DCAT
application
profile
for
data
portals
in
Europe
.
23
December
2015.
Version
1.0.
URL:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/dcat_application_profile/asset_release/geodcat-ap-v10
[ISOIEC25012]
ISO/IEC
25012
-
Data
Quality
model
.
URL:
http://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-25000-standards/iso-25012
[MultilingualImporting]
Riccardo
Albertoni;
Monica
De
Martino;
Paola
Podestà.
A
Linkset
Quality
Metric
Measuring
Multilingual
Gain
in
SKOS
Thesauri
.
2015.
LDQ@ESWC
2015.
URL:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1376/LDQ2015_paper_01.pdf
[ODRL]
Renato
Iannella;
Susanne
Guth;
Daniel
Paehler;
Andreas
Kasten.
ODRL
Version
2.1
Core
Model
.
5
March
2015.
W3C
Community
Group
Specification.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/community/odrl/model/2.1/
[OWL-primer]
Pascal
Hitzler;
Markus
Krötzsch;
Bijan
Parsia;
Peter
F.
Patel-Schneider;
Sebastian
Rudolph.
OWL
2
Web
Ontology
Language
Primer
.
W3C
Recommendation
11
December
2012.
URL:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/
[PROV-O]
Timothy
Lebo;
Satya
Sahoo;
Deborah
McGuinness.
W3C.
PROV-O:
The
PROV
Ontology
.
30
April
2013.
W3C
Recommendation.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
[RijgersbergEtAl]
Hajo
Rijgersberg;
Mark
van
Assem;
Jan
L.
Top.
Ontology
of
units
of
measure
and
related
concepts
.
Semantic
Web,
vol.
4,
no.
1,
pp.
3-13,
2013.
URL:
https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SW-2012-0069
[SHACL]
Holger
Knublauch;
Arthur
Ryman.
Shapes
Constraint
Language
(SHACL)
.
28
January
2016.
W3C
Working
Draft.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
[SKOS-reference]
Alistair
Miles;
Sean
Bechhofer.
W3C.
SKOS
Simple
Knowledge
Organization
System
Reference
.
18
August
2009.
W3C
Recommendation.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference
[Vocab-Data-Cube]
Richard
Cyganiak;
Dave
Reynolds.
The
RDF
Data
Cube
Vocabulary
.
16
January
2014.
W3C
Recommendation.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/
[WebAnnotation]
Robert
Sanderson;
Paolo
Ciccarese;
Benjamin
Young.
Web
Annotation
Vocabulary
.
5
July
2016.
W3C
Candidate
Recommendation.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-annotation-vocab-20160705/
[ZaveriEtAl]
Amrapali
Zaveri;
Anisa
Rula;
Andrea
Maurino;
Ricardo
Pietrobon;
Jens
Lehmann;
Sören
Auer.
Quality
assessment
for
Linked
Data: A
Survey
.
Semantic
Web,
vol.
7,
no.
1,
pp.
63-93,
2015.
URL:
https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/SW-150175
[qSKOS]
Christian
Mader;
Bernhard
Haslhofer;
Antoine
Isaac.
Finding
Quality
Issues
in
SKOS
Vocabularies
.
2012.
Theory
and
Practice
of
Digital
Libraries,
Lecture
Notes
in
Computer
Science,
Vol.
7489,
pp
222-233.
URL:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33290-6_25
[vocab-dcat]
Fadi
Maali;
John
Erickson.
W3C.
Data
Catalog
Vocabulary
(DCAT)
.
16
January
2014.
W3C
Recommendation.
URL:
https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
↑
