- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:04:28 +0200
- To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>, <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi Makx, What is your timing? It would be good to wait until the Note if published (or at least wait a couple of weeks) before flagging this to your colleague. As you can see my suggestion was a mere suggestion. Someone from this WG may still chime in and propose something else. Antoine On 16/06/16 10:14, Makx Dekkers wrote: > 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 12:05:11 UTC