Re: a first proposal for Issue-205

Antoine and Riccardo,

I really like this thread on using skos as a way of refining concepts.  So
+1 to your suggested approach for a way of using skos hierarchie in the
DQV.  I think this helps answer a similar question I have in the DUV.

Regarding the Web Annotation Model Motivations, I see motivations as being
a starting place to contextually describe a rationale for an annotation.  I
could see the use of skos as the way you are describing this as a means
help refine the motivation definition.

Eric S.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Antoine Isaac <> wrote:

> Hi,
> Thanks a lot, Riccardo!
> I'd suggest a small amendment: I we don't need dqv:hasDimension as a
> subproperty of skos:broader. This would de-facto classify dqv:Metrics as
> dqv:Concepts. While I'm generally not so fussy about dual-typing things as
> skos:Concepts and other classes, here I'm not sure this will bring us
> anything positive.
> My take is that using SKOS hierarchies in our context would rather pay off
> as an option to organize the categories or the dimensions between them.
> For example:
> ex:linguisticCompleteness skos:broader ex:completeness.
> This would bring us quite close to the patter used for motivations by the
> Web Annotation model [1].
> There the SKOS relations hold between (extensions of) motivations. And our
> own dqv:hasDimension/dqv:hasCategory would have for dqv:Metric a role
> analogous to that of oa:motivatedBy for oa:Annotation.
> This pattern also allow to later reconcile different categories or
> dimensions coming from different instanciations of DQV. Continuing my toy
> example:
> ex1:linguisticCompleteness skos:closeMatch ex2:languageCoverage
> In the end I'm fairly sure following a very similar patter to that of Web
> Annotation will pay off, as both DUV and DQV are already re-using bits of
> the Annotation Model. But I don't know precisely when and how :-)
> A final comment: the Web Annotation model is still officially a moving
> target. But they're progressing quite fast, and the Motivation part of the
> model has been stable for quite a while so I wouldn't refrain from getting
> inspiration from it. In fact this SKOS-based pattern has been used in many
> other data models...
> Cheers,
> Antoine
> [1]
> On 10/27/15 6:28 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> Following the discussion we had  last friday's call concerning issue-205,
>> a first   proposal we might discuss  in order to turn  metrics,
>> dimensions and categories into a skos hierarchy  is the following
>> Proposal 1: Let’s define
>> -dqv:hasDimension and  dqv:hasCategory as subproperties
>> (rdfs:subPropertyOf)  of skos:broader;
>> -dqv:Category,  dqv:Dimension, dqv:Metric  as subclasses of
>> (rdfs:subClassOf) skos:Concept.
>> In this way, we have that every  user-defined   category/ dimension/
>> metric hierarchy  is automatically mapped into a SKOS hierarchy. At the
>> same time,  this proposal  remains “back-compatible” with DAQ,  since we
>> have  dqv:Category,  dqv:Dimension, dqv:Metric  still mapped into their
>> corresponding   DAQ's metric, dimension, and category.
>> What do you think? Does this work? any refinement?
>> Cheers,
>> Riccardo
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Riccardo Albertoni
>> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico
>> Magenes"
>> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
>> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
>> tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
>> e-mail: <mailto:
>> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
>> LinkedIn:
>> www:
>> FOAF:

Received on Thursday, 26 November 2015 02:13:40 UTC