Re: dwbp-ISSUE-159 (Eric Stephan): Is R-QualityOpinions more of a Data Usage Vocabulary concept? [Data Usage Vocabulary]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the heads-up, I've tried to answer. By the way Bart has said he was lack time to contribute to the Q&G voc in the editor seat, and Christophe has volunteered to work as new co-editor! Though of course Bart is always welcome to come back and co-lead the work :-)
I thought I had reported on it already in a past call. In case it wasn't clear I'm re-stating it now!

Best,

Antoine

On 4/12/15 12:58 PM, Eric Stephan wrote:
> Hi Antoine and Bart,
>
> I just wanted to call your attention to this issue I opened under the Data Usage Vocabulary.  I could go either way, but wanted to be clear as its role in the Data Usage Vocab.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric S
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     dwbp-ISSUE-159 (Eric Stephan): Is R-QualityOpinions more of a Data Usage Vocabulary concept? [Data Usage Vocabulary]
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/159
>
>     Raised by: Eric Stephan
>     On product: Data Usage Vocabulary
>
>     The Data Usage Vocabulary can rely on the Data Quality and Granularity vocabulary to describe types of feedback, in the form of metrics etc.  Data Quality descriptions can exist as an assessment independently of Data Usage.  E.g. a data producer provides assessments to the data producer at the time of publication.
>
>     Question:  Is it more natural fit for the R-QualityOpinions requirements to be a part of the Data Usage Vocabulary IF R-QualityOpinions is only to be used to describe consumer feedback?
>
>     If R-QualityOpinions is viewed as the other Data Quality vocabulary requirements where opinions could be provided in some cases independent of Data Usage feedback, then perhaps R-QualityOpinions should stay a part of the Data Quality Vocabulary.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 12 April 2015 11:53:52 UTC