- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:22:28 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Sounds like good cross WG work to me. Thanks Antoine. On 17/06/2016 14:55, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi, > > For info, here's the progress made on Action-208 [1] > I forgot to cc our own WG list :-/ > Anyway, I think the action is done, and we've got a satisfactory solution. > To sum up: we have to keep creating/defining our DQV instance of the Web > Annotation Motivation class (dqv:qualityAssessment), but the WA WG have > added a new motivation (oa:assessing) that we can use to "anchor" our > new motivation to. This allows us to follow their best practices for > doing such extensions of the WA motivation framework. > > Antoine > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208 > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: New Web Annotation motivation for (data quality) assessment? > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 23:35:16 +0200 > From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> > To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> > CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Public Annotation List > <public-annotation@w3.org> > > Hi Rob, > > Sorry for the delay answering. I actually wanted to answer after the > update of > http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#dqv:qualityAssessment > which is now done. > So when you'll update the reference version of WA our link will point to > oa:assessing. > I think we're done. Thanks a lot to the WA WG for the help! > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > On 01/06/16 17:11, Robert Sanderson wrote: >> >> Well, we decided already to change reviewing to assessing, which is in >> the most recent editor's draft on github :) >> I expect this version is what will be taken to CR, so it should >> hopefully go up on W3C by the end of the June. >> >> And then dqv:qualityAssessing skos:broader oa:assessing seems like an >> easy addition. >> >> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose >> >> Rob >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 6:38 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl >> <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks for the feedback on this. >> >> I will forward the suggestions for motivation vs subclassing. >> >> About the introduction of new motivation(s) in WA to support our >> case: I think Rob's solution is workable on our side. >> Is it possible to know when the WA group would make a decision >> about it? >> I reckon that if DQV keeps dqv:qualityAssessment and the only >> change we have to make is to add a skos:broader statement between it >> and a new 'assessment' motivation in the WA namespace, this can be >> done very easily. But it would make our life easier if we can have an >> idea of when the motivation would be available for us to link to. >> >> Cheers, >> > > > > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 17 June 2016 14:22:07 UTC