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.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-motivatio
> 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.html
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 07:12:22 UTC