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

dwbp-ISSUE-201 (RiccardoAlbertoni): Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary]

From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 11:39:37 +0000
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ZjQan-0002En-OA@deneb.w3.org>
dwbp-ISSUE-201 (RiccardoAlbertoni): Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary]

http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201

Raised by: Riccardo Albertoni
On product: Quality & Granularity Vocabulary

Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes?
Combining the predefined oa:Motivation (http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Motivations) with the dqv:qualityAssessment we can distinguish different kind of for  dqv:UserQualityFeedback,  for example:
1.	dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:editing might represent a request for a modification or edit which affects the quality of the target dataset/distribution
2.	dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:questioning might express a question issued about specific quality of dataset/distribution
3.	(?!?!?)dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:classification might represent the assignment of a classification type, typically from a controlled vocabulary, to the target resource(s). For example, it could be exploited to classify a dataset/distribution to certain rating system (e.g., 5 Star (open) linked data rating system) .
Should we encourage this practice among DQV adopters?
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:39:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:39:41 UTC