On 4/8/11 2:25 PM, Frank Manola wrote: > On Apr 7, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Deborah MacPherson wrote: > >> I think data quality conforms to metrics and repeatable processes. > Now we're getting somewhere! Certainly one key to dealing with "the > subjective matter of data quality" is to start to make data quality issues > more *objective*.
Yes, and go one step further by making the *objectivity* part of the data. Basically, discussion/conversation/debates about the data should be part of the zeitgeist of any Data Object or collection of Data Objects. > Everyone can have their own opinion about what constitutes quality, but in > the Web of linked data those opinions should be documented, in the form of > metadata on evaluation criteria, metrics, processes, etc. (PICS anyone?) > associated with the data. Yep! As stated above. > Even if there isn't agreement on what those criteria, etc. are, there would > be a better basis for grappling with the disagreements. Agreeing to Disagree is one of the most powerful aspects of the Web and the emerging Web of Linked Data :-) > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
