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

Re: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:45:11 +0100
Message-ID: <56E16C57.3030903@few.vu.nl>
To: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Riccardo,

I think I would also like to go for A, and have examples.

That said this seems orthogonal to the modeling decision about OA motivations that we the starting point if Issue-201, wasn't it?
We could have the different flavours or feedback and still let it open whether they are represented :
-with specific subclasses of dqv:QualityAnnotation or dqv:UserQualityFeedback
- without subclasses but with WA motivations
- with a combination of both (ie. creating subclasses and asserting OWL axioms that relate them to WA motivations)

Unless I've misunderstood your proposal A (I take the requirement to 'distinguish' to not necessarily require sub-class).

Regarding these, I strongly support the use of WA motivations for interorperability purposes, even if we create further specialized subclasses of annotations.

Cheers,

Antoine

On 3/3/16 7:09 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> 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?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Riccardo
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201
>
>
> On 11 December 2015 at 14:43, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto: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 Magenes"
> 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 <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni
> www: _http://www.imati.cnr.it/_
> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni
> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 12:45:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 10 March 2016 12:45:44 UTC