RE: Motivations

+1 I think keeping "type" and "motivation" separate is essential.

From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 12:17 PM
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Cc: Web Annotation
Subject: Re: Motivations


As Jacob says, the reason for the gerund form was specifically to avoid the conflation of motivation with class or type.

The key points:
* SKOS Concepts give us more flexibility in inter-relating motivations than a class hierarchy, with closeMatch and so forth.  The expectation is that there will be many specific motivations, and they'll need to be reconciled appropriately.

* We wanted to avoid inadvertently inheriting features of classes across communities.  One community might want to subClass oa:Annotation to create a particular constrained type of tagging annotation that MUST have exactly one embedded body.  That is fine (of course) but with the inclusion of the motivation separately, another system can determine the appropriate rendering.

* There's still issues with nouns, though less so with verbs: the annotation isn't itself an identifier, I guess it could be an identification.  Is the annotation a link (for oa:linking?) or an edit?

I think the decision tree is:

* Is the objection to the use of skos:Concepts, rather than classes?  (if yes, we should discuss that)
* If not, is the objection to the definition of motivation for creating the annotation?   (if yes, we should discuss that too)
* If not, given that these are instances, is there significant improvement in understanding by renaming them? (if yes, please justify)

If not, I think that leaving them as is makes the most sense rather than a backwards incompatible change.

Rob


On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu<mailto: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<tel:%28217%29%20244-2164>
jjett2@illinois.edu<mailto:jjett2@illinois.edu>

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov<mailto: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<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<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<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<mailto: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