- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:48:55 +0200
- To: Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
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.html 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-motivations [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.html > >
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2016 13:49:28 UTC