Re: DWBP vocabularies and annotations

Annette,

Thanks for your input!  Please see my comments below.

Eric

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
> First, let me say that I realized today I have been reading the graph
> wrong. I didn't realize that the closed arrows were indicating a subclass.


I think we need to include a legend for the symbols.


> So, I think we're actually on the same page regarding feedback. But I do
> think that other types of usage that people would want to report make sense
> as annotations as well. I guess I'm thinking of annotations as a generally
> useful construct for this because they form a type of formal reference back
> to the original that doesn't exist elsewhere on the web.


Could you give a more concrete example?  Just to be clear are you thinking
about "usage" not covered by the Data Usage vocab?

Since I believe a major goal of the vocabulary is to enable users of data
> to report that usage back to publishers in a way that the publishers can
> find, I see annotations as a mechanism for allowing that sort of reference.
> I think publishers would be interested in being made aware of all the types
> of use we're considering, so that makes me think perhaps they should all be
> defined as some type of annotation. I also like that annotations already
> have a way to record provenance.
>

I think there are cases it might be appropriate to use the web annotation
model directly.  Maybe we could include pointers to related complementary
efforts.  You mentioned provenance, I see provenance as being in this same
category.  We could include references to the provenance efforts.



> What do you think?
> -Annette
>
> On May 29, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Annette,
> >
> > First of all thank you for pointing us to the Web Annotations
> Motivations in April after our F2F.  I have found this to be very useful.
> Our approach has been to make a subclass of duv:Feedback
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#vocabulary-specification so that
> we inherit all aspects of the Annotation class.
> >
> > I am reluctant to just use the Annotation class as a substitute for our
> subclass solution, because we are trying to model specific requirements for
> feedback on datasets as opposed to a generic annotation about any web
> resource.
> >
> > Without a subclass it becomes clumsy from a search and discovery
> standpoint separating feedback about the dataset from generic annotations,
> because I would lack a crucial part of a query pattern needed to hone in on
> what I'm after and any of my queries would require a secondary step for
> filtering any annotation that was not related directly to the aspect of
> feedback.
> >
> > Another solution just using generic annotations is annotating the
> annotation to declare that this feedback on data usage, but again declaring
> a subclass does that for me.
> >
> > Does this make sense to you?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> wrote:
> > All the talk about defining extensions to DCAT is making me re-examine
> my thoughts about how the DUV relates to annotations. I keep thinking that
> we should be defining our usage annotations as oa:Annotations in the web
> annotations vocabulary, rather than duv:UsageAnnotations. I think we and
> the annotations WG are both trying to define a means of linking additional
> content to existing web resources, in our case datasets. The annotations
> spec defines a list of motivations[1], some of which I think already
> represent concepts that we're talking about including, "commenting",
> "describing", "editing", and "questioning", for example.  I think we could
> define new motivations for what's missing, like "citing" and "rating". We
> really should avoid creating a situation where people need to choose
> between one annotation system and the other, IMHO.
> > -Annette
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/#motivations
> >
>
>