ebu
Was there a request for data quality descriptions?
Yes, it is something that we can address. The notion of data quality implies a metric that takes into account the AME process and manual annotation. It is on our agenda for long-term development.
I remember we discussing this around five years ago in the context of CCDM and automatic metadata… not sure what the outcome was… :)
The ongoing CCDM update introducing class restrictions already is a great step towards automated quality assurance, supported by reasoning. Due to the Open World Assumption of OWL2, the scope of quality assurance can be improved by the introduction of SHACL, which introduces a closed world assumption. SHACL shapes actually represent kind of QA rules. Even for desired QA rules that cannot be covered by SHACL directly, SHACL can embed SPARQL statements to implement almost any kind of specific QA rules. These SHACLs can be managed within a QA suite, which performs the SHACLs or their embedded SPARQLs respectively and provide a "CCDM Content QA Report". If this sounds attractive, I offer to elaborate a concrete proposal.
A PySHACL based QA suite is available and can be taken into operation once the quality criteria is defined.