- From: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:32:07 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOHhXmQbJ8BFXKyjk-aKDKsNPJ-Hy8DGX7jf78xeDBCccz25uw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Antoine, On 10 March 2016 at 13:45, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > Hi Riccardo, > > I think I would also like to go for A, and have examples. > > Good, let's go for A ! > That said this seems orthogonal to the modeling decision about OA > motivations that we the starting point if Issue-201, wasn't it? > We could have the different flavours or feedback and still let it open > whether they are represented : > -with specific subclasses of dqv:QualityAnnotation or > dqv:UserQualityFeedback > - without subclasses but with WA motivations > - with a combination of both (ie. creating subclasses and asserting OWL > axioms that relate them to WA motivations) > > Yes, even if I like the last two options more than the first, classes without WA motivations are somehow incoherent with OA. > Unless I've misunderstood your proposal A (I take the requirement to > 'distinguish' to not necessarily require sub-class). Exactly! > > Regarding these, I strongly support the use of WA motivations for > interorperability purposes, even if we create further specialized > subclasses of annotations. I am going to follow the group preference on whether or not to explicitly define the subclasses of annotations ( i.e., define subclasses of dqv:UserQualityFeedback). Taking a deeper look at [5] I realized they recommend to define a new skos:ConceptScheme to include the motivations required by others vocabulary. Now I understand your attempt to map dqv:qualityAssessment into oa:motivation, which is pretty fine to me .. I'm sorry I did not realize this at first .. In view of that, instead of combining the motivations from DQV and OA as I had suggested in the issue description, we might think of defining a brand new skos:ConceptScheme, and to map the new schema's concepts into OA motivations. The new concept scheme could have dqv:qualityAssessment as top most skos concept, and it could narrow dqv:qualityAssessment with further DQV motivations such as dqv:qualityFixing, dqv:qualityQuestioning, dqv:qualityClassifying. These three new motivations can be respectively skos:broadMatch with oa:editing, oa:questioning, oa:classifying. Could this suit our goals? Cheers, Riccardo > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > On 3/3/16 7:09 PM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Concerning issue-201 [1], I think it is time to decide between two >> options >> >> A- To distinguish different kinds of for user quality feedbacks (e.g., >> questions, request for correction, classifications inherent to quality) >> >> B- To not further specify dqv:UserQualityFeedback avoiding the >> aforementioned distinctions. >> >> I would prefer to go for A, and I think we can progress on this issue by >> adding an example where we have >> >> (i) a dqv:UserQualityFeedback showing a quality annotation which >> requires to modify or edit a target dataset/distribution (i.e., by >> specifying dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:editing as oa:motivation, we can >> point out that there is a missing data type or a missing language a typo in >> the description of an specific entity). >> >> (ii) two dqv:UserQualityFeedback questioning quality about specific >> dataset/distribution, (i.e., by specifying dqv:qualityAssessment plus >> oa:questioning as by oa:motivation, we can ask "does this data contain >> all the items included in XXX ?" "is this dataset still up to date?". >> Optionally, these two dqv:UserQualityFeedback could have two extra >> oa:Motivation specifying the quality dimensions the annotations refer >> to, :Completeness and :Timeliness respectively) >> >> (iii) a dqv:UserQualityFeedback post a quality rating with >> oa:motivation dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:classification . >> >> How do you feel about the previous example? shall we insert it in the >> document and kill the issue? >> >> A side note, I have noticed that DUV already uses a modelling pattern >> to classify a dataset/distribution against a rating system. As far as I >> understand, DUV specifies the annotation as a *duv:RatingFeedback* < >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-du.html#class-ratingfeedback> instead >> of specifying the OA:motivation for distinguishing between plane feedback >> and ratings. Considering that duv:ratingFeedback and >> DQV:UserQualityfeedback are not defined as disjoint classes, I think we >> can still have the third part of the previous example without conflicting >> with DUV. Don't you? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Riccardo >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201 >> >> >> On 11 December 2015 at 14:43, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto: >> aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Today I had a (live) discussion with Rob Sanderson, chair of the Web >> Annotation WG, about Action-208 [1] to see whether they would consider >> adding our dqv:qualityAssessment instance of oa:Motivation [2] in their >> centralized list of motivations [3]. >> >> Rob's answer is that for now it seems better for us to keep our >> motivation in our namespace. >> >From the semantic perspective, dqv:qualityAssessment is related to >> oa:moderating that is defined as >> [ >> The motivation for when the user intends to assign some value or >> quality to the Target. For example annotating an Annotation to moderate it >> up in a trust network or threaded discussion. >> ] >> >> It is not clear however whether dqv:qualityassessment is a direct >> specialization of oa:moderating, though (ie. whether there should be a >> skos:broader between the two). There could be some DQV cases that don't >> fit... >> So we agreed for the moment skos:closeMatch could be safer. >> >> I've updated our DQV RDF file [4] trying to follow the WA >> recommendations for extending motivations [5]. >> >> We will probably have to re-examine the two aspect of the discussion >> (i.e. inclusion of our motivation in oa:, and relation between the two >> motivations) later in the new year. >> >> I believe this would naturally happen when we come back to another WA >> motivation-related discussion [6]. >> >> Best, >> >> Antoine >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/actions/208 >> [2] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/vocab-dqg.html#Class:QualityAnnotation >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#creation-reason >> [4] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dqv.ttl >> [5]http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#extending-motivations >> [6] http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/201 >> >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be >> clean. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Riccardo Albertoni >> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico >> Magenes" >> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche >> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA >> tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660 >> e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it <mailto: >> Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> >> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni >> www: _http://www.imati.cnr.it/_ >> http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni >> FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Riccardo Albertoni Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico Magenes" Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660 e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni www: *http://www.imati.cnr.it/ <http://www.imati.cnr.it/>* http://purl.oclc.org/NET/riccardoAlbertoni FOAF:http://purl.oclc.org/NET/RiccardoAlbertoni/foaf
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 22:32:40 UTC