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

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 :)


On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Antoine Isaac <> 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]

Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049

Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 15:05:38 UTC