Re: Action-208 Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding dqv motivation

Hi everyone,

Keeping you informed on the discussion with the WA group on this issue. Especially one of the chair's last mails:

It seems that we'll have to keep our own dqv:qualityAssessment Motivation, but we could count on them to add a more generic 'assessment' motivation that we can link to as a 'broader' motivation, following the extension pattern recommended by Web Annotation WG for motivations [3].

One interesting piece of feedback from Rob is that we should consider actually dropping our subclass of oa:Annotation. I.e. removing dqv:QualityAnnotation altogether.
I think I'm in favour of this - if we're recommended to have a quality-specific motivation anyway, then having the dqv:QualityAnnotation is a bit redundant. As expressed in the formal equivalence axiom at [4].

Has anyone any strong opinion against doing this?




On 27/05/16 09:00, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Just to keep track of this action [1]: I've sent a mail to the WA group [2] after discussing the matter with Rob Sanderson last week.
> antoine
> [1]
> [2]

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:49:28 UTC