- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:05:16 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <8E76B87A-B9B5-43FE-90E2-4317963ACA8A@w3.org>
> On 1 Jun 2016, at 15:38, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Thanks for the feedback on this. > > I will forward the suggestions for motivation vs subclassing. > > About the introduction of new motivation(s) in WA to support our case: I think Rob's solution is workable on our side. > Is it possible to know when the WA group would make a decision about it? > I reckon that if DQV keeps dqv:qualityAssessment and the only change we have to make is to add a skos:broader statement between it and a new 'assessment' motivation in the WA namespace, this can be done very easily. But it would make our life easier if we can have an idea of when the motivation would be available for us to link to. > Once things are decided and the document published, we should also think about submitting an official comment on DQV because we all agreed that what is done there is not what we would favour. The comment could either come from you, Antoine, or from the WG, in which case it can be submitted by the chairs or by me. Ivan > Cheers, > > Antoine > > On 27/05/16 17:05, Robert Sanderson wrote: >> >> I'm in favor of a general "assessing" (or similar) motivation being included in the set of Motivations in the specification, and then letting DQV either use it as is, or if it's not specific enough, then create a narrower motivation following the patterns described in Appendix C of the Vocab document. I agree with Antoine that there aren't any that would satisfy as broader motivations at the moment. Perhaps we could replace reviewing with assessing, then a reviewing could be recreated as narrower. >> >> I agree that a new motivation is better than subClassing annotation -- this is why we introduced motivations, to avoid having to subclass Annotation for every slight twist on the usage :) >> >> Rob >> >> >> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes what you describe is what we're asking. With the important nuance is that if you don't want to do it (and I understand the reasons you write) we would still need a more general 'assessment' motivation, so we can attach the motivation in the DQV namespace to something in the WA namespace using skos:broader, as it would fit for a good extension of the WA motivations. >> >> >> I am not sure I understand that. If the DQV document defines the (dqv:dataQualityAssessment rdf:type oa:Motivation) triple, why isn't that enough for your purposes? >> >> >> I am trying here to have DQV comply with the recommendations on extending motivations: >> "The skos:broader relationship SHOULD be asserted between the new Motivation and at least one existing Motivation, if there are any that are broader in scope." [1] >> >> >> O.k. But, I believe, this should also be done by the DQV authors, they define the new motivation. It is of course a genuine question whether this motivation can be attached to any of "our" motivations. If the answer is no, then we can either get into a discussion on what type of new motivation we should define for that purpose, or simply drop the skos:broader in that case (hence a SHOULD not a MUST…). But the initiative should still come from the DQV side, in my view. >> >> >> >> The new, more general motivation would be 'assessment', 'evaluation' or 'rating'. When trying to find a skos:broader for our motivation dqv:qualityAssessment, I was actually quite surprised not to find anything like this in WA. This is not a common annotation use case? In fact the definition of the existing oa:moderating Moderation [1] has a bit of this, but the label is really much more specific than what would expect for a general assessment. >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivation-and-purpose >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Rob Sanderson >> Semantic Architect >> The Getty Trust >> Los Angeles, CA 90049 > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2016 14:05:27 UTC