- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:24:31 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <3F9E3333-0B42-4193-999C-1539B0199058@w3.org>
> On 27 May 2016, at 12:10, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > > 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] 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. > >> >>> >>> 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. Me too… Ivan > > 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 >> >> >> >> > ---- 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 10:24:44 UTC