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:
- Re: comments on DUV and some proposals (from bfl@cin.ufpe.br on 2015-06-11)
- 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:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-wg/2015Jun/0010.html
Bernadette Farias Loscio, 11 Jun 2015, 23:19:34Display change log