Fwd: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations

All,

To complete the circle, please see below. If there is any disagreement, and
a desire to extend the list of motivations with one for assessing quality,
then please do speak up.  The rationale behind my opinion conveyed below
was the open issue to re-assess the existing motivations, and this would
add another rather than removing any.  That and it seems more specific than
any of the current intentionally vague and generic ones.  There's
moderating that they can relate to, so it falls into the structure okay
from a separate namespace.

Rob

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 2:43 PM
Subject: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation
motivations
To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>


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



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305