Web Annotations and the Dataset Usage Vocabulary

[avoided cross-posting; however cc'd web annotation public list to enable more feedback]


The Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group has created an Editors Draft document, "Data on the Web Best Practices: Dataset Usage Vocabulary". This document makes use of web annotations to annotate data sets. They are requesting feedback and guidance before going to FPWD.

According to Eric,  one of the editors (cc'd),  "the vocabulary is split into 3 parts:  feedback, citation, and experience.  The feedback portion of the model is supposed to capture blogs, opinions, ratings, public discussions, curation activities.  The closer we look at the open annotation model the more Motivations seem appealing.   What we need at this point is guidance to make sure we are using the Open Annotation Model correctly."

The Dataset Usage Vocabulary draft is at http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html

Eric, Phil - Motivations certainly seem appropriate; see  the "Web Annotation Data Model' TR draft (note that this is not the older open annotation document),  see http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/#motivations

I suggest that the DUV reference the Web Annotation TR draft and not specify annotation class etc. The Motivation relationship to Web Annotations should be made clear with a new section on Motivations, with non-normative explanation of use. I also suggest that the DUV state that oa:annotations MUST have motivation in the DUV context even though they are a SHOULD in the Web Annotation specification (to meet DUV requirements). Clarity on the relationship to Web Annotations via explication would be helpful to readers.

The Motivations defined in DUV appear to be: cites, consumes, gives-feedback (oa: commenting), endorses, rates, and corrects (did I miss any?) 

Perhaps gives-feedback should be instead oa:commenting;  Open question, should others be defined in the Web Annotation specification to enable consistent use in other contexts?

Eric, Phil - After email discussion, it might make sense for you to join us on a Web Annotation call to discuss, if convenient for you (we generally meet 11am ET Wednesday's) or we can come up with an alternative. We can discuss off-line amongst chairs/team.

Also  I think it would be useful to provide a link to your work from the Annotation WG web pages as an example of annotation use once this is further along, perhaps at FPWD.

Feedback from others in the Annotation WG would be welcome.

Some very minor editorial comments follow below.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG



Some minor editorial comments:

Please reference the "Web Annotation Data Model", see http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-annotation-model-20141211/

a) Remove Section 6 "DUV Requirements" and rename Section 5 "Use Cases". Provide subsections for  R-Citable, R-TrackDataUsage, R-UsageFeedback

b) in R-Citable table, space needed in "studies.Capability"

c) in R-TrackDataUsage 'provence' should be 'provenance'

d) fix table column 2 header for  'R-TrackDataUsage' and R-UsageFeedback to be those respectively

e)  not sure why there is a MUST for LusTRE, isn't that up to that community?

f) need consistent formatting for table headers.

g)  Section 8.1 for Property: develops do you mean 'Inverse relationship of isDefinedBy' ? Confused by definedBy vs developedBy

h) Section 8.2 'Class Annotation' isDefinedBy ; namespace is http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#


Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2015 20:44:19 UTC