Re: Motivations

Right! The further description would be a property (or properties) of the
body (or the target, speaking more generally than just Bibframe and cover
art), in the communities native vocabulary.

And yes, we already have oa:linking so we would just make a narrower
oa:linking_cover_art motivation.


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 2:45 PM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
wrote:

> Not sure something that narrow is needed.
>
> There is also an "oa:linking" already, fwiw:
> "The motivation that represents an untyped link to a resource related to
> the Target."
>
> My guess is that you'd further describe (perhaps in your own vocabulary)
> that the resource related to the target is indeed cover art (vs. the inside
> flap, spine, etc).
>
> Maybe?
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>
>> “case I would make a Skos concept for "attaching" or "linking" and then
>> make an additional concept for "attaching-cover-art" which is a sub-type of
>> the first concept. “
>>
>>
>>
>> So “attaching’” would be a motivation, and “attaching cover art” a
>> sub-motivation?    How do you express a sub-motivation?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob
>> Jett
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2015 3:31 PM
>> *To:* Web Annotation
>> *Subject:* Re: Motivations
>>
>>
>>
>> My first intuition with regards to changing the predicate to "asserting"
>> is that it is probably okay. However...
>>
>>
>>
>> With regards to the Bibframe use case, I understand it from bygone days
>> as a cataloger. It is frequently the case that it is desirable to give OPAC
>> users additional information about bibliographic resources beyond the
>> metadata records that describe them and, it certainly became standard
>> practice in the early 2000's to attach cover art images to metadata records
>> as a means to supplement them. When the end user retrieves the record in
>> the OPAC it gives them something to look for on the shelf.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this example though the actual motivation for the annotation is not
>> "Cover Art" but rather "Attaching a Resource" -- in this case an image file
>> depicting some cover art. Bibframe has a specific use for a more general
>> motivation within their contextual framework. In this case I would make a
>> Skos concept for "attaching" or "linking" and then make an additional
>> concept for "attaching-cover-art" which is a sub-type of the first concept.
>>
>>
>>
>> No real need to wander away from using verbs in the gerund form.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 2:13 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
>>
>> ­­
>>
>> *From: Benjamin Young [mailto:bigbluehat@hypothes.is]
>> <[mailto:bigbluehat@hypothes.is]>*
>>
>>
>>
>> > If we choose to change "describing" to "description" then we should
>> change
>>
>> > "hasMotivation" also, so that the whole is more legible.
>>
>>
>>
>> *(As Rob notes, it's actually "motivatedBy".)  I would like to change it
>> to "asserting".  I think of an annotation as asserting a relationship
>> between the body and target.  Thus, if A is a review of B, then the
>> annotation:*
>>
>> ·         *has target B,*
>>
>> ·         *has body A,*
>>
>> ·         *is asserting that  the body is a review of the target.  I.e.
>> it is “asserting (a) review”*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "annotation is a description" reads nicely...but then looks like
>> sub-classing.
>>
>>
>>
>> *I'm trying to find a middle ground here, where we can talk about type
>> without it needing to be rdf:type.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ray's original motivation was improving our cosmetics:
>>
>>
>>
>> *I lied.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Well not really lied, but perhaps we could  see this as a change where
>> the world at large would view it as cosmetic while my constituency would
>> see it as something more substantive. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *I want to also point out, although  the motivations listed in the model
>> are expressible in the gerund for (and perhaps all could be expressed in
>> infinitive form)   there are going to be annotation “types” that cannot be
>> expressed in either of those forms.  I have already submitted “cover art”
>> as an annotation type.  How would you express the motivation there?
>> “Coverarting”?  “Table of contents” is going to be an annotation type in
>> BIBFRAME (which I’ll explain in a separate post) and that’s another
>> example.  HeldItem might be another annotation type. *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *In responds to Rob’s questions:*
>>
>>
>>
>> > * Is the objection to the use of skos:Concepts, rather than classes?
>>
>> *No, no objection from me, to the model prescribing this approach.  We
>> have already left the door open for other namespaces to use subclassing
>> instead (or in addition) and that’s good enough for me.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > * If not, is the objection to the definition of motivation for creating
>> the
>>
>> > annotation?
>>
>>
>>
>> *The closest thing I see (in the model) to a definition is “the reasons
>> why the Annotation was created”  and I have no objection to that
>> definition.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > * If not, given that these are instances, is there significant
>> improvement in
>>
>> > understanding by renaming them?
>>
>> *No, to say that there would be a significant improvement in
>> understanding would be a stretch. I am saying that the suggested change
>> would allow those of us who like to think in terms of annotation types to
>> do so, without forcing the concept on those who don’t. *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Thanks.  *
>>
>>
>>
>> *Ray*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>