Re: Action-208 Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding dqv motivation

Hi Makx,

What is your timing?
It would be good to wait until the Note if published (or at least wait a couple of weeks) before flagging this to your colleague.
As you can see my suggestion was a mere suggestion. Someone from this WG may still chime in and propose something else.

Antoine

On 16/06/16 10:14, Makx Dekkers wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> I will notify the people who are working on this that these changes need to
> be made to the specification.
>
> Makx.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: 16 June 2016 09:12
> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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.htm
>> l
>>
>> 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-mot
>> ivatio
>> 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.htm
>> l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2016 12:05:11 UTC