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, 10 Mar 2016 23:32:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQbJ8BFXKyjk-aKDKsNPJ-Hy8DGX7jf78xeDBCccz25uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Antoine,

On 10 March 2016 at 13:45, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Riccardo,
> I think I would also like to go for A, and have examples.
Good, let's go for A !

> 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)
> Yes, even if I like the last two options more than the first, classes
without WA motivations are somehow incoherent with OA.

> 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.

I am going to follow the group preference on  whether or not to  explicitly
define the  subclasses of annotations ( i.e., define subclasses of

Taking a deeper look at [5] I realized they recommend to define a new
skos:ConceptScheme to include the motivations required by others
vocabulary. Now I understand your attempt to map dqv:qualityAssessment
into oa:motivation, which is pretty fine to me .. I'm sorry I did not
realize this at first ..

In view of that, instead of combining  the motivations from DQV and OA as I
had suggested in the issue description, we might think of defining a brand
new skos:ConceptScheme, and to map the new schema's concepts  into OA

The new concept scheme  could have dqv:qualityAssessment  as top most skos
concept, and it could   narrow  dqv:qualityAssessment  with further DQV
 motivations   such as dqv:qualityFixing,  dqv:qualityQuestioning,
dqv:qualityClassifying.  These three new motivations can be  respectively
skos:broadMatch with  oa:editing, oa:questioning, oa:classifying.
Could this suit our goals?


> 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

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, 10 March 2016 22:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 10 March 2016 22:32:41 UTC