Re: Motivations

Thanks for the corrections James and Rob! My bad.

I did some SKOS reading and that helped a bit. Thanks.
On Feb 2, 2015 12:27 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>