ISSUE-201: Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes?

QualityAnnotations and motivations

Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Quality & Granularity Vocabulary

Raised by:

Riccardo Albertoni

Opened on:

2015-10-06

Description:

Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes?
Combining the predefined instances of oa:Motivation with the dqv:qualityAssessment we could distinguish different kinds of for user feedbacks, for example:

1. dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:editing might indicate a request for a modification or edit, which relates to the quality of the target dataset/distribution
2. dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:questioning might express a question issued about specific quality of the dataset/distribution
3. dqv:qualityAssessment plus oa:classification might represent the assignment of a classification type, typically from a controlled vocabulary or list, to the target resource(s). For example, it could be used to classify a dataset/distribution against a rating system (e.g., the 5 Stars linked open data rating system).

Should we encourage this practice among DQV adopters?

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-256 on Riccardo Albertoni to Add a note saying that new motivations can be defined but that this should be done following the open annotation guidelines - due 2016-03-21, closed
• ACTION-258 on Riccardo Albertoni to Remove the domain from dqv:indimension, move it from section measurement and add it in the dqv diagram and send a email to jeremy. with the new definition of dqv:indimension, where dqv:indimension is a super-property of the inverse of daq:hasmetric - due 2016-03-21, closed
• ACTION-259 on Riccardo Albertoni to Add examples showing user feedback for questioning and classification. - due 2016-03-21, closed
• ACTION-208 on Antoine Isaac to Contact oa wg to see whether they would consider adding dqv motivation - due 2016-04-01, closed

Related emails:

1. Re: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations (from albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it on 2016-03-10)
2. Re: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2016-03-10)
3. Re: Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations (from albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it on 2016-03-03)
4. Relation between dqv:qualityAssessment and Web Annotation motivations (from aisaac@few.vu.nl on 2015-12-11)
5. dwbp-ISSUE-201 (RiccardoAlbertoni): Should we exploit predefined instances of oa:Motivation to further characterize the UserQualityFeedback purposes? [Quality & Granularity Vocabulary] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-10-06)

Related notes:

Display change log