- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:10:41 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Ivan, On 27/05/16 11:36, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> On 27 May 2016, at 09:32, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: >> >> Hi Ivan, >> >> 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] > >> >> To answer your other question: DQV is going for Note status, not Rec. >> > > Ah. That may be o.k. then, it would be a stable document. But, afaik, because it is a Note, we still couldn't refer to it normatively… > Honestly I'd be a bit reluctant to have WA depend on the content of another voc that's not a Rec. Cheers, Antoine [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-annotation-vocab-20160331/#extending-motivations >> >> On 27/05/16 09:27, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ---- > 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 Friday, 27 May 2016 10:11:12 UTC