Looking over the metric implementation for cleaning purposes I noticed some inconsistences in metric names:
- In the most cases the metric name reflects the corresponding quality problem, so 'UndefinedClasses', or 'DuplicateInstances' or 'ObsoleteConceptInOtology'. However, some metrics have different meaning - LowUsageOfBlankNodes, Even it's not possible for all metrics, In some cases it makes more sence to reflect the quality problems, e.g. BlankNodeUsage.
Some metric names are confusing, they don't reflect the metric definition. It would be helpful either adapt their implementation (if exactly this metric is required for use case) or rename them. This is the list of such metrics:
- ShortURIs metric actually computes the average URU length, so maybe (AverageURILength) ?
- LowBlankNodeUsage metric actually computes the ratio of 'good' entities. - the current implementation computes NoBlankNodesRatio, but it would makes more sence to define BlankNodesRatio.
- Metric UnstructuredData probably shoulb be separated into the two metrics: UnstructuredData and DeadURIs metrics
@jerdeb BTW the test for Dereferencability metric fails.
Looking over the metric implementation for cleaning purposes I noticed some inconsistences in metric names:
Some metric names are confusing, they don't reflect the metric definition. It would be helpful either adapt their implementation (if exactly this metric is required for use case) or rename them. This is the list of such metrics:
@jerdeb BTW the test for Dereferencability metric fails.