This issue has been reported by Andrea Perego.
In its email, Andrea raises up some questions/comments relating to the use of DQV for geospatial metadata:
- Could it be considered (partial) compability with the approaches defined in ISO 19115:2003 and ISO 19157:2013 standards as a possible requirement (see  and  for an overview)? Could the DQV be seen as a "core" vocabulary, meant to define the main data quality concepts, common across domains, that can be possibly extended to address domain-specific requirements?
- ISO includes DQV with respect to "conformance" with quality standards/benchmarks, with the notion of "conformance result". However, it is only supported one specific case in DQV, via dct:conformsTo, i.e. when data are "conformant", whereas ISO allows also to state that data are not conformant. Moreover, INSPIRE "extends" ISO by allowing to state that conformance has not been evaluated (see ).
- GeoDCAT-AP addresses this issue by modelling conformance results with PROV (using nonetheless also dct:conformsTo when data are conformant with the referred specification). For the modelling "pattern" used, feedback has been asked from the PROV WG. The original proposal was to use EARL. Finally, it was decided switching to PROV as a more sustainable solution. An example can be found below:
<a:Dataset> prov:wasUsedBy [
# Conformity degree
a prov:Entity, dct:Standard;
dct:title "COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 976/2009 of 19 October
2009 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council as regards the Network Services"@en
and the same by using dct:conformsTo:
<a:Dataset> dct:conformsTo [
dct:title "COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 976/2009 of 19 October 2009
implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council as regards the Network Services"@en
dct:issued "2009-10-20"^^xsd:date ] .
The PROV-based approach allows to attach additional information about the provenance of quality metadata (when the test has been carried out, by whom, with which methodology and/or test tool, etc.).
It is kindly requested the provision of any feedback on this approach, which would be relevant for the final GeoDCAT-AP specification.