- From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:11:12 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOHhXmT_ahA8uY2wykoCf8_=HFCyd5GDSYha50K3Mq-xnHVLwg@mail.gmail.com>
Dear Antoine, Not sure that I have strong objections to Rob's proposal, but I have at least one or two considerations against it. DQV diagram currently deliver a very clear message: "DQV let you say something about quality Measurement, Policy and Annotation." And that is also because we have explicitly defined three classes for these artifacts. how the DQV diagram would look after removing dqv:QualityAnnotation? would it deliver the same message? Rob is right, DQV:QualityAnnotation is slightly redundant. At the same time, we have to consider that DQV is mixing different existing vocabularies, in fact, we put a lot of efforts in trying to reuse modelling solutions and terms from third parties vocabularies. Those efforts has brought to a model which sews OA, DQV and PROV, Datacube, SKOS together. I think that some extent of redundancy is necessary to help users in understanding the overall model. That apart, I have also to admit that, at this stage of the DQV development, due to lack of time, I have a rather conservative approach.... Cheers, Riccardo On 1 June 2016 at 15:48, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Keeping you informed on the discussion with the WA group on this issue. > Especially one of the chair's last mails: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0285.html > > 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? > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > [3] > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-annotation-vocab-20160331/#extending-motivations > [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dqv/#dqv:QualityAnnotation > > > 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] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208 >> [2] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0275.html >> >> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni www: *http://www.imati.cnr.it/ <http://www.imati.cnr.it/>* http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2016 15:11:43 UTC