- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:11:47 +0200
- To: <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Makx, all Belated answer, sorry. but thanks for your feedback. Yes, I had proposed to drop dqv:QualityAssessment, and keep the combination of: - dqv:hasQualityAnnotation - have a motivation set to dqv:dataQualityAssessment for the instance of oa:Annotation used to express the quality annotation. The only difference between dqv:QualityAssessment and oa:Annotation was indeed that dqv:QualityAssessment somehow offers a stronger guarantee of having the desired motivation present in the data, and somehow could be easier to use, by just using a type and not an extra triple. This may have been interesting for some syntaxes. But I think it's also potentially more confusing, as it would include two variations to express one same thing. Anyone had any opinion? Antoine On 01/06/16 17:20, Makx Dekkers wrote: > Antoine, > > Do I understand correctly that you propose to replace the class > dqv:QualityAssessment by ao:Annotation, but still keep the property > dqv:hasQualityAnnotation? > > In fact, I wondered why there was a separate class dqv:QualityAssessment as > it did not seem to be different from ao:Annotation at all. > > I just wrote a proposal to use dqv:hasQualityAnnotation for one of my > projects, so as long as that is not at risk, it's fine with me. > > Makx. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] > Sent: 01 June 2016 15:49 > To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org> > Subject: 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: > 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-motivatio > ns > [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 >> >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 07:12:22 UTC