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

Thanks.

I will notify the people who are working on this that these changes need to
be made to the specification.

Makx.



-----Original Message-----
From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl] 
Sent: 16 June 2016 09:12
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Action-208 Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider
adding dqv motivation

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.htm
> l
>
> 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-mot
> ivatio
> 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.htm
> l
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 08:14:58 UTC