Re: New Web Annotation motivation for (data quality) assessment?

Antoine,

just to make it very clear, what you would like to have is to add another item into the table in

http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose

and in

http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/#named-individuals

with the name 'qualityAssessment' (or maybe dataQualityAssessment').

My worry is: I think any such definition should be made by the DQV spec, ie, the DWBP WG, as part of their vocabulary, because I do not think we are in position to provide a proper semantic definition (other than copy-pasting theirs). Actually, I believe we should comment on their spec; I am indeed not sure that the approach they took (subclassing an annotation, instead of 'just' defining a different motivation) is the right approach. I am definitely in favour of a motivation instance, ie, the approach that you guys preferred, and this is what they should do in the DQV document.

If this WG agrees on that, we should submit an issue to that group ASAP.

*If* that group provides a stable term, then it is of course possible to add a term in the OA vocabulary with a sameAs, resp. a JSON term, to avoid an unnecessary extra namespace usage. But that is only cosmetics. The practical issue, however: that document is "only" a WD. I am not sure when the intend to go for a Rec, ie, whether we can normatively refer to them.

Cheers

Ivan


> On 27 May 2016, at 08:56, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> The W3C Data on the Web Best Practices has released a new version of its Data Quality Vocabulary (DQV) working draft.
> DQV makes uses of the Web Annotation model for representing 'Quality Assessments' [1].
> 
> But for doing this, we need a way to explicitly represent that these QA annotations are about QA. There are basically two options:
> - create our own subclass of oa:Annotation
> - use the standard Annotation class, but use it together with an instance of oa:Motivation (linked to the annotation by oa:purpose) that reflects the QA goal, such as dqv:qualityAssessment.
> 
> For the moment we've implemented the second option, and I think it is our prefered one. But this can be changed. In fact we have discussed the matter with you earlier [2], and we've agreed it could be better to leave some time for both specs to mature. Now clearly the time has come!
> 
> First, it would be good to have a sort of approval on whether our motivation-based approach still seems the right one to follow.
> 
> Second, if the WA group agrees with our motivation-based approach, then we need to think of the fate of dqv:qualityAssessment.
> Rob and I have just discussed it at the iAnnotate conference.
> 
> Ideally for DQV the qualityAssessment Motivation would sit in the WA namespace, so that we do not have to do a motivation extension for just one instance of oa:Motivation.
> Even if the WA group would not do this, we need a proper instance of oa:Motivation in the default set of motivations (something like oa:assessment), so that we can specialize it.
> Our problem is indeed that qualityAssessment doesn't really match *one* existing motivation. Some quality assessment can be comments, other could be tags.
> 
> Could the WA WG include something with the vocabulary for us to be able to meet our needs?
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> Antoine
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vocab-dqv-20160519/#dqv:QualityAnnotation
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0122.html
> 


----
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