Re: Fwd: Re: New Web Annotation motivation for (data quality) assessment?

Sounds like good cross WG work to me. Thanks Antoine.

On 17/06/2016 14:55, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For info, here's the progress made on Action-208 [1]
> I forgot to cc our own WG list :-/
> Anyway, I think the action is done, and we've got a satisfactory solution.
> To sum up: we have to keep creating/defining our DQV instance of the Web
> Annotation Motivation class (dqv:qualityAssessment), but the WA WG have
> added a new motivation (oa:assessing) that we can use to "anchor" our
> new motivation to. This allows us to follow their best practices for
> doing such extensions of the WA motivation framework.
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: New Web Annotation motivation for (data quality) assessment?
> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:35:16 +0200
> From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
> To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List
> <public-annotation@w3.org>
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Sorry for the delay answering. I actually wanted to answer after the
> update of
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#dqv:qualityAssessment
> which is now done.
> So when you'll update the reference version of WA our link will point to
> oa:assessing.
> I think we're done. Thanks a lot to the WA WG for the help!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> On 01/06/16 17:11, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>
>> Well, we decided already to change reviewing to assessing, which is in
>> the most recent editor's draft on github :)
>> I expect this version is what will be taken to CR, so it should
>> hopefully go up on W3C by the end of the June.
>>
>> And then dqv:qualityAssessing skos:broader oa:assessing seems like an
>> easy addition.
>>
>> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl
>> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     Thanks for the feedback on this.
>>
>>     I will forward the suggestions for motivation vs subclassing.
>>
>>     About the introduction of new motivation(s) in WA to support our
>> case: I think Rob's solution is workable on our side.
>>     Is it possible to know when the WA group would make a decision
>> about it?
>>     I reckon that if DQV keeps dqv:qualityAssessment and the only
>> change we have to make is to add a skos:broader statement between it
>> and a new 'assessment' motivation in the WA namespace, this can be
>> done very easily. But it would make our life easier if we can have an
>> idea of when the motivation would be available for us to link to.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Friday, 17 June 2016 14:22:07 UTC