W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations

From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 19:09:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmSXP-vdPeqUnTP_M97ydjsOagNLZUdP-MbNN2qovoRxJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Dear All,

Concerning issue-201 [1], I think it is time to  decide between  two options

A- To distinguish different kinds of for user quality feedbacks
(e.g.,  questions,
request for correction,  classifications inherent to quality)

B- To  not further specify  dqv:UserQualityFeedback  avoiding the
aforementioned distinctions.

I would prefer to  go for A, and I think we can progress on this issue by
adding  an example where we have

(i) a dqv:UserQualityFeedback showing a quality annotation which   requires
to modify or edit a  target dataset/distribution (i.e., by
specifying dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:editing as oa:motivation,
we can  point out that there is a missing data type or a missing language a
typo in the description of an specific entity).

(ii) two dqv:UserQualityFeedback questioning quality about specific
dataset/distribution,  (i.e., by specifying  dqv:qualityAssessment plus
oa:questioning as by oa:motivation,  we can ask  "does this data contain
all the items included in XXX ?"   "is this dataset still up to date?".
Optionally, these two dqv:UserQualityFeedback could  have two extra
oa:Motivation specifying the quality  dimensions  the annotations  refer
to, :Completeness  and :Timeliness respectively)

(iii) a dqv:UserQualityFeedback post a quality rating   with oa:motivation
dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:classification .

How do you feel about the previous example?  shall we insert it in the
document and kill the issue?

A side note,  I have noticed that DUV already  uses a modelling pattern
to classify a dataset/distribution against a rating system. As far as I
understand,  DUV specifies the annotation as  a *duv:RatingFeedback*
<http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#class-ratingfeedback>   instead of
specifying  the OA:motivation for distinguishing between plane feedback and
ratings.  Considering that duv:ratingFeedback and DQV:UserQualityfeedback
are not defined  as disjoint classes, I think  we can still have the third
part of the previous example without conflicting with DUV.  Don't you?



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

On 11 December 2015 at 14:43, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Today I had a (live) discussion with Rob Sanderson, chair of the Web
> Annotation WG, about Action-208 [1] to see whether they would consider
> adding our dqv:qualityAssessment instance of oa:Motivation [2] in their
> centralized list of motivations [3].
> Rob's answer is that for now it seems better for us to keep our motivation
> in our namespace.
> From the semantic perspective, dqv:qualityAssessment is related to
> oa:moderating that is defined as
> [
> The motivation for when the user intends to assign some value or quality
> to the Target. For example annotating an Annotation to moderate it up in a
> trust network or threaded discussion.
> ]
> It is not clear however whether dqv:qualityassessment is a direct
> specialization of oa:moderating, though (ie. whether there should be a
> skos:broader between the two). There could be some DQV cases that don't
> fit...
> So we agreed for the moment skos:closeMatch could be safer.
> I've updated our DQV RDF file [4] trying to follow the WA recommendations
> for extending motivations [5].
> We will probably have to re-examine the two aspect of the discussion (i.e.
> inclusion of our motivation in oa:, and relation between the two
> motivations) later in the new year.
> I believe this would naturally happen when we come back to another WA
> motivation-related discussion [6].
> Best,
> Antoine
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#Class:QualityAnnotation
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#creation-reason
> [4] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dqv.ttl
> [5]http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#extending-motivations
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201
> --
> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be
> clean.

Riccardo Albertoni
Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
www: *http://www.imati.cnr.it/ <http://www.imati.cnr.it/>*
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:09:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:09:45 UTC