W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > June 2015

dwbp-ISSUE-178: The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. [Data Usage Vocabulary]

From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:18:24 +0000
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Z3Bjs-000Ehg-Lh@deneb.w3.org>
dwbp-ISSUE-178: The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. [Data Usage Vocabulary]

http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/178

Raised by: Joao Paulo Almeida
On product: Data Usage Vocabulary

With respect to C, if we go with Open Annotation, then we could call what is currently called duv:Feedback as duv:DataRatingAnnotation. However, note that Open Annotation suggests that we do not subclass oa:Annotation because of particular motivations for annotation but instead use SKOS and create instances of oa:Motivation. In this case, we should eliminate duv:Feedback altogether, and just understand User feedback/rating as a new instance of oa:Motivation (e.g., oa:rating). (see current list at [3], which does not include in my opinion something like oa:rating). What currently is duv:has_rating would be some subclass of oa:hasBody (or it would just be oa:hasBody). This requires more discussion as I found the current examples unclear, which bodies of the annotations that are just text.
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 23:18:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 11 June 2015 23:18:26 UTC