W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > February 2015

RE: Motivations

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 20:36:53 +0000
To: "Denenberg, Ray" <rden@loc.gov>, 'Web Annotation' <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CO2PR06MB57243B569E1285B98FAC664DF3C0@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Just to make sure I'm understanding . . .

When I said I thought it was important to keep "type" and "motivation" separate, it was because I think there is a very high value to "type," and that needs to accommodate very flexible--often user- or community-specific--terms. Thus as I mentioned on an earlier call, I don't think we should try to define what "types" there are, we should just make sure there is a means to designate a type.

That seems different from where we're going with motivations, correct? Two different things, and we need both.

And that's why I was advocating verbs for motivations, and nouns for types.

Or am I misunderstanding?

From: Denenberg, Ray [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:13 PM
To: 'Web Annotation'
Subject: RE: Motivations


­­

From: Benjamin Young [mailto:bigbluehat@hypothes.is]<mailto:[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








Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 20:37:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:32 UTC