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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>