Compare Page

Interpretability

Characteristic Name: Interpretability
Dimension: Usability and Interpretability
Description: Data should be interpretable
Granularity: Information object
Implementation Type: Process-based approach
Characteristic Type: Usage

Verification Metric:

The number of tasks failed or under performed due to the lack of interpretability of data
The number of complaints received due to the lack of interpretability of data

GuidelinesExamplesDefinitons

The implementation guidelines are guidelines to follow in regard to the characteristic. The scenarios are examples of the implementation

Guidelines: Scenario:
Standardise the interpretation process by clearly stating the criteria for interpreting results so that an interpretation on one dataset is reproducible (1) 10% drop in production efficiency is a severe decline which needs quick remedial actions
Facilitate the interaction process based on users' task at hand (1) A traffic light system to indicate the efficiency of a production line to the workers, a detail efficiency report to the production manage, a concise efficiency report for production line supervisors
Design the structure of information in such a way that further format conversions are not necessary for interpretations. (1) A rating scale of (poor good excellent ) is better than (1,2,3) for rate a service level
Ensure that information is consistent between units of analysis (organisations, geographical areas, populations in concern etc.) and over time, allowing comparisons to be made. (1) Number of doctors per person is used to compare the health facilities between regions.
(2) Same populations are used over the time to analyse the epidemic growths over the tim
Use appropriate visualisation tools to facilitate interpretation of data through comparisons and contrasts (1) Usage of tree maps , Usage of bar charts, Usage of line graphs

Validation Metric:

How mature is the process to maintain the interpretability of data

These are examples of how the characteristic might occur in a database.

Example: Source:
when an analyst has data with freshness metric equals to 0, does it mean to have fresh data at hand? What about freshness equals to 10 (suppose, we do not stick to the notion proposed in [23])? Is it even fresher? Similar issues may arise with the notion of age: e.g., with age A(e) = 0, we cannot undoubtedly speak about positive or negative data characteristic because of a semantic meaning of “age” that mostly corresponds to a neutral notion of “period of time” O. Chayka, T. Palpanas, and P. Bouquet, “Defining and Measuring Data-Driven Quality Dimension of Staleness”, Trento: University of Trento, Technical Report # DISI-12-016, 2012.
Consider a database containing orders from customers. A practice for handling complaints and returns is to create an “adjustment” order for backing out the original order and then writing a new order for the corrected information if applicable. This procedure assigns new order numbers to the adjustment and replacement orders. For the accounting department, this is a high-quality database. All of the numbers come out in the wash. For a business analyst trying to determine trends in growth of orders by region, this is a poor-quality database. If the business analyst assumes that each order number represents a distinct order, his analysis will be all wrong. Someone needs to explain the practice and the methods necessary to unravel the data to get to the real numbers (if that is even possible after the fact). J. E. Olson, “Data Quality: The Accuracy Dimension”, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 9 January 2003.

The Definitions are examples of the characteristic that appear in the sources provided.

Definition: Source:
Comparability of data refers to the extent to which data is consistent between organisations and over time allowing comparisons to be made. This includes using equivalent reporting periods. HIQA 2011. International Review of Data Quality Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Ireland. http://www.hiqa.ie/press-release/2011-04-28-international-review-data-quality.
Data is not ambiguous if it allows only one interpretation – anti-example: Song.composer = ‘Johann Strauss’ (father or son?). KIMBALL, R. & CASERTA, J. 2004. The data warehouse ETL toolkit: practical techniques for extracting. Cleaning, Conforming, and Delivering, Digitized Format, originally published.
Comparability aims at measuring the impact of differences in applied statistical concepts and measurement tools/procedures when statistics are compared between geographical areas, non-geographical domains, or over time. LYON, M. 2008. Assessing Data Quality ,
Monetary and Financial Statistics.
Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/
statistics/Documents/ms/articles/art1mar08.pdf.
The most important quality characteristic of a format is its appropriateness. One format is more appropriate than another if it is better suited to users’ needs. The appropriateness of the format depends upon two factors: user and medium used. Both are of crucial importance. The abilities of human users and computers to understand data in different formats are vastly different. For example, the human eye is not very good at interpreting some positional formats, such as bar codes, although optical scanning devices are. On the other hand, humans can assimilate much data from a graph, a format that is relatively hard for a computer to interpret. Appropriateness is related to the second quality dimension, interpretability. REDMAN, T. C. 1997. Data quality for the information age, Artech House, Inc.

 

Precision

Characteristic Name: Precision
Dimension: Accuracy
Description: Attribute values should be accurate as per linguistics and granularity
Granularity: Element
Implementation Type: Rule-based approach
Characteristic Type: Declarative

Verification Metric:

The number of tasks failed or under performed due to lack of data precision
The number of complaints received due to lack of data precision

GuidelinesExamplesDefinitons

The implementation guidelines are guidelines to follow in regard to the characteristic. The scenarios are examples of the implementation

Guidelines: Scenario:
Ensure the data values are correct to the right level of detail or granularity (1) Price to the penny or weight to the nearest tenth of a gram.
(2) precision of the values of an attribute according to some general-purpose IS-A ontology such as WordNet
Ensure that data is legitimate or valid according to some stable reference source like dictionary/thesaurus/code. (1) Spellings and syntax of a description is correct as per the dictionary/thesaurus/Code (e.g. NYSIIS Code)
(2) Address is consistent with global address book
Ensure that the user interfaces provide the precision required by the task (1) if the domain is infinite (the rational numbers, for example), then no string format of finite length can represent all possible values.
Ensure the data values are lexically, syntactically and semantically correct (1) “Germany is an African country” (semantically wrong); Book.title: ‘De la Mancha Don Quixote’ (syntactically wrong); UK’s Prime Minister: ‘Toni Blair’ (lexically wrong)

Validation Metric:

How mature is the creation and implementation of the DQ rules to maintain data precesion

These are examples of how the characteristic might occur in a database.

Example: Source:
if v = Jack,even if v = John, v is considered syntactically correct, as Jack is an admissible value in the domain of persons’ names C. Batini and M, Scannapieco, “Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies, and Techniques”, Springer, 2006.

The Definitions are examples of the characteristic that appear in the sources provided.

Definition: Source:
Data values are correct to the right level of detail or granularity, such as price to the penny or weight to the nearest tenth of a gram. ENGLISH, L. P. 2009. Information quality applied: Best practices for improving business information, processes and systems, Wiley Publishing.
Data is correct if it conveys a lexically, syntactically and semantically correct statement – e.g.,the following pieces of information are not correct:“Germany is an African country” (semantically wrong);Book.title: ‘De la Mancha Don Quixote’ (syntactically wrong); UK’s Prime Minister: ‘Toni Blair’ (lexically wrong). KIMBALL, R. & CASERTA, J. 2004. The data warehouse ETL toolkit: practical techniques for extracting. Cleaning, Conforming, and Delivering, Digitized Format, originally published.
The set S should be sufficiently precise to distinguish among elements in the domain that must be distinguished by users. This dimension makes clear why icons and colors are of limited use when domains are large. But problems can and do arise for the other formats as well, because many formats are not one-to-one functions. For example, if the domain is infinite (the rational numbers, for example), then no string format of finite length can represent all possible values. The trick is to provide the precision to meet user needs. LOSHIN, D. 2001. Enterprise knowledge management: The data quality approach, Morgan Kaufmann Pub.
Is the information to the point, void of unnecessary elements? LOSHIN, D. 2006. Monitoring Data quality Performance using Data Quality Metrics. Informatica Corporation.
The degree of precision of the presentation of an attribute’s value should reasonably match the degree of precision of the value being displayed. The user should be able to see any value the attributer may take and also be able to distinguish different values. REDMAN, T. C. 1997. Data quality for the information age, Artech House, Inc.
The granularity or precision of the model or content values of an information object according to some general-purpose IS-A ontology such as WordNet. STVILIA, B., GASSER, L., TWIDALE, M. B. & SMITH, L. C. 2007. A framework for information quality assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1720-1733.