Re: Motivations

All, please note that the predicate is currently oa:motivatedBy
    http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#motivations

So:  This annotation [is] motivated by describing.
Versus:  This annotation [is] motivated by [to] describe.

Rob


On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:20 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 2, 2015 9:12 AM, "Benjamin Young" <bigbluehat@hypothes.is> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a historic post (and subsequent thread) for reference:
> >
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2012Oct/0002.html
> >
> > Looks like it was post #2 to the original mailing list. :)
> >
> > Right now things read pretty well (if they are a bit atypical) such as:
> > "has motivation describing"
> >
> > Whereas "has motivation describe" doesn't read so good.
> >
>
> Using the infinitive form, there'd be an implied "to" in there: "has
> motivation '[to] describe'", " has motivation '[to] bookmark'".
>
> Using the gerundive form, there's an implied "of": "has motivation [of]
> 'describing'", " has motivation [of] 'bookmarking'".
>
> I'd argue that the former reads much better than the latter.
>
> - James
>
> > Ray's posts in this thread do seem to highlight a desire he has (and
> likely many others have) to "sub-class" (at some level) an Annotation into
> a bookmark, highlight, etc. and the "legibility" of "annotation has
> motivation bookmarking" feels pretty odd in the current landscape--however
> accurate it may be.
> >
> > So...if we keep "hasMotivation" as written, I'd vote against changing
> from "bookmarking" (etc).
> >
> > If we choose to change "describing" to "description" then we should
> change "hasMotivation" also, so that the whole is more legible.
> >
> > "annotation is a description" reads nicely...but then looks like
> sub-classing.
> >
> > Likely any UI or (non-SPARQL or similar) code will actually contain
> sub-class style objects, UI ephemera, etc.
> >
> > In sum:
> >
> > Ray's original motivation was improving our cosmetics:
> > "This is a cosmetic suggestion: I find these gerund construction a bit
> awkward, and would prefer “straight” nouns, as in the following table."
> >
> > Would this change do that without farther reaching consequences?
> >
> > Curious. Mostly. :)
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> -1 from me I'm afraid. Motivation is less about the "type" of the
> annotation than the role that the body is playing in the annotation. When
> it comes to specialization's of annotation I find it to be a slippery slope
> of conflating role of body with structure of annotation.
> >>
> >> My preference is thereby for the verb form, and specifically the gerund
> because :_anno1 oa:hasMotivation oa:Tagging sounds better than :_anno1
> oa:hasMotivation oa:Tag. This was the kind of discussion that led to the
> creation of motivation in the community group to start with.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jacob
> >>
> >> _____________________________________________________
> >> Jacob Jett
> >> Research Assistant
> >> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> >> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> >> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> >> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> >> (217) 244-2164
> >> jjett2@illinois.edu
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I can go either way but I do have a preference for the noun form.
> That's because I like to think of the "type" of an annotation.  It's a
> bookmark,  or it's a tag, or it's a review.
> >>>
> >>> I do understand the reason why we don't (that is, no longer) want to
> talk about the type of an annotation: because it is too suggestive of
> rdf:type, i.e. the RDF class, and the class of an annotation no longer
> applies (i.e. we are discouraged from subclassing oa:Annotation).  Still,
> if we can get past that, I'd prefer the noun form.
> >>>
> >>> Ray
> >>>
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com]
> >>> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:03 AM
> >>> > To: Denenberg, Ray; 'James M Snell'
> >>> > Cc: 'Web Annotation'
> >>> > Subject: RE: Motivations
> >>> >
> >>> > I support both of these changes, which results in (to be less
> formally
> >>> > grammatical) a clear, simple, active verb (not a noun). In fact I
> read your list
> >>> > that way at first, because "bookmark" can be both, but when I got to
> >>> > "classification" and "description" I realized (as you clearly
> stated!) that you
> >>> > were proposing nouns. I like this move, but to use verbs. So yes,
> I'd drop the
> >>> > "to."
> >>> > --Bill K
> >>> >
> >>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > From: Denenberg, Ray [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> >>> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:48 AM
> >>> > To: 'James M Snell'
> >>> > Cc: 'Web Annotation'
> >>> > Subject: RE: Motivations
> >>> >
> >>> > Yes I nearly suggested the infinitive form instead, but didn't know
> what to do
> >>> > with the "to" part.  I.e. the infinitive form of "bookmarking" is
> "to bookmark".
> >>> > I suppose you just drop the "to"?
> >>> >
> >>> > Ray
> >>> >
> >>> > > -----Original Message-----
> >>> > > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com]
> >>> > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:41 AM
> >>> > > To: Denenberg, Ray
> >>> > > Cc: Web Annotation
> >>> > > Subject: Re: Motivations
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Speaking from the sidelines... I would strongly support this. With
> >>> > > Activity Streams, it was decided very early on that it would be
> better
> >>> > > to use the infinitive form of activity verbs in nearly all cases. I
> >>> > > would take this one step further and suggest "classify" to
> >>> > > "classification"; "describe" for "description"; "identify" for
> "identifier"; and
> >>> > "moderate" for "moderation".
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov>
> wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > The motivations listed in 3.4 of the model, “bookmarking”,
> >>> > > > “classifying”, and so on …
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > This is a cosmetic suggestion: I find these gerund construction a
> >>> > > > bit awkward, and would prefer “straight” nouns, as in the
> following table.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Current Motivation
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Would Become:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > bookmarking
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > bookmark
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > classifying
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > classification
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > commenting
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > comment
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > describing
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > description
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > editing
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > edit
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > highlighting
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > highlight
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > identifying
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > identifier
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > moderating
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > moderation
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > questioning
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > question
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > replying
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > reply
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > tagging
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > tag
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Is there support for this change?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Ray
> >>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305