Data Quality - Revision history

Wiki-JoWalsh: /* Participants in this document / proposal */

2010-10-27T14:48:40Z

Participants in this document / proposal

2010-10-27T13:55:21Z

Edit-time quality reporting

2010-10-27T13:53:23Z

Attestation

2010-10-27T13:47:09Z

Starting with Nothing

2010-10-27T13:44:08Z

Overview

2010-10-27T13:38:16Z

Fit for 15/10?

2010-10-27T13:14:14Z

2010-10-27T12:57:18Z

Fit for 15/10?

2010-10-27T12:53:08Z

Themes

2010-10-27T12:49:53Z

Fit for 15/10?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 27 October 2010
Line 63:		Line 63:

	[[User:JoWalsh\|Jo Walsh]] - EDINA, University of Edinburgh		[[User:JoWalsh\|Jo Walsh]] - EDINA, University of Edinburgh
		+	Muki Haklay - University College London

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 27 October 2010
Line 47:		Line 47:

	The JOSM Validator model, looking at logical consistency of edits to OSM before commit. Again there's a data production bias here - how many research users of OSM, for example, are active editors?		The JOSM Validator model, looking at logical consistency of edits to OSM before commit. Again there's a data production bias here - how many research users of OSM, for example, are active editors?
		+
		+	More generally, there is a balance between the use of labour of contributors (while assuming that they are not very trustworthy) to the use of 'distributed intelligence' (which assumes that their analysis skills can be used).

	== Interviews ==		== Interviews ==

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 === Attestation ===
-Peer review for data quality / social aspect to data sources.
+Peer review for data quality / social aspect to data sources. Research shows that data can improve through peer review - even when the users are non domain expert. This should be very suitable to the academic community, with the trend of academic researchers releasing their source code and data sets for review. However, the relationships between experts and general users are somewhat more contested in the academic environment, and there is a need for expert overview and mechanisms to allow the understanding of the credibility and knowledge of a reviewer. For example, the assertion that a bus stop is miss located on the map can be done by anyone, but the identification of a rare butterfly requires specific domain knowledge. In both cases, a non-professional scientist can contribute the information accurately (some hobbyists have more time on their hands to identify butterflies then professional researchers)
 === Edit-time quality reporting ===

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 === Starting with Nothing ===
-The traditional ISO data quality model assumes theoretically perfect data. Many measures and tests can only be run in comparison with a known higher quality, more "authoritative" dataset.
+The traditional ISO data quality model assumes theoretically perfect data. Many measures and tests can only be run in comparison with a known higher quality, more "authoritative" dataset or through ground truth.
 Perfect data does not look like a reasonable assumption.
 === Attestation ===

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 * INSPIRE does not mandate quality standards but Joint Research Commission recognises that not to consider quality, is an oversight.
-* The ISO standards regarding quality of geographic information are oriented towards quality assurance in the data production process
+* The ISO standards regarding quality of geographic information are oriented towards quality assurance in the data production process. They also assume that the end user will accept the product as homogeneous, where a generic quality statement applies to all objects and areas.
 * This means a lack of focus on the value of data quality information from the end-user's perspective - what problems are we helping to solve by publishing data quality information?
 * For example, OS Research has done extensive work on a "vernacular gazetteer" of shapes for social names, but data quality concerns prohibit its release, even for research.
 * Geodata world has its domain specific problems, can benefit from looking at lighter weight /

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 27 October 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:

	* We'd be looking at a mixture of service/tool re-use and structured interviews with academic geodata users regarding their concerns around quality.		* We'd be looking at a mixture of service/tool re-use and structured interviews with academic geodata users regarding their concerns around quality.
		+
		+	* Exploring the concept of fit-for-use from a user-centred perspective (in contrast to producer centred view). This should guide the development of user-centred metadata discovery.

	== Themes ==		== Themes ==

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 == Interviews ==
 == Participants in this document / proposal ==
-[[User:JoWalsh|Jo Walsh]]
+[[User:JoWalsh|Jo Walsh]] - EDINA, University of Edinburgh

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 27 October 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:

	* Briefing emphasises infrastructure development, re-use of tools and services, both those directly supported by JISC and others popular on the web		* Briefing emphasises infrastructure development, re-use of tools and services, both those directly supported by JISC and others popular on the web
		+
		+	* We'd be looking at a mixture of service/tool re-use and structured interviews with academic geodata users regarding their concerns around quality.

	== Themes ==		== Themes ==

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * Quality currently looks like a niche issue. New developments in data sharing over the internet will raise priority for machine-reusable descriptions of data quality (distributed databases; multiple copies of the same resource unsynchronised, or variably edited; more collaborative mapping projects along lines of OSM and OpenAddresses; lossy or transient datastores; linked data pollution)
 == Fit for 15/10? ==
 == Themes ==