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

This sounds good.

Antoine

On 16/06/16 15:09, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> The timing is that a specification with the references to DQV is scheduled
> to be open for public review in July and August. I am not sure what the
> flexibility is, but otherwise there could perhaps be a note in the
> specification that DQV is still under development.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: 16 June 2016 14:04
> To: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>; public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action-208 Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider
> adding dqv motivation
>
> 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.ht
>>> m
>>> 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-mo
>>> t
>>> 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.ht
>>> m
>>> l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 21:30:12 UTC