Re: Motivations

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.

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
>>
>
>