- 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
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