ISSUE-178: The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation.

The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation.

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Data Usage Vocabulary

Raised by:

Joao Paulo Almeida

Opened on:

2015-06-11

Description:

With respect to C, if we go with Open Annotation, then we could call what is currently called duv:Feedback as duv:DataRatingAnnotation. However, note that Open Annotation suggests that we do not subclass oa:Annotation because of particular motivations for annotation but instead use SKOS and create instances of oa:Motivation. In this case, we should eliminate duv:Feedback altogether, and just understand User feedback/rating as a new instance of oa:Motivation (e.g., oa:rating). (see current list at [3], which does not include in my opinion something like oa:rating). What currently is duv:has_rating would be some subclass of oa:hasBody (or it would just be oa:hasBody). This requires more discussion as I found the current examples unclear, which bodies of the annotations that are just text.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: comments on DUV and some proposals (from bfl@cin.ufpe.br on 2015-06-11)
2. dwbp-ISSUE-178: The definition of duv:Feedback needs to be reviewed because it is not clear if it should be a subclass of oa:Annotation or just an instance of oa:Motivation. [Data Usage Vocabulary] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-06-11)

Related notes:

Display change log