Re: Motivation as Property or Value (was: CFC: Basic Roles Proposal)

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your input into the discussion!

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Bill Hunt <>
> I understand that the consensus is that my suggestion wouldn't work
> because you'd have to define every role as it would appear - which is hard
> since we can't predict everything anyone would ever want to do.  My
> argument was that 99% of roles could be defined in a very narrow set of a
> half dozen or so; anyone who's doing something else or wants to create a
> new role wouldn't be handled by a "standard" consumer so they'd be off the
> map anyway.

I think that, happily, we can easily put this to rest.

There are already a dozen motivations defined in the model [1], and your
use case did not fit into those 12, as there isn't a motivation that's
explicitly the text to replace target text with.  So in order to fulfill
your use case, you would be outside of the standard too.  The 12 were
already trimmed down from longer lists of motivations by looking across
many use cases and previous research in the OAC and OA-CG days.

In the IIIF use case, we had to define a new motivation (painting), and
that's likely insufficient and we'll need at least 3 further motivations as
narrower concepts of it to clarify expected client behavior (transcribing,
translating, editing [in the sense of creating a textual edition of a
work]) [2].

So, I hope that you can see that 99% of roles really won't fit into half a
dozen, and hence property-as-role really doesn't work for interoperability
without the significant overhead of RDF inferencing to determine how they
relate to hasBody or hasTarget.




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

Received on Saturday, 29 August 2015 02:04:13 UTC