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

Re: Motivations

From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 14:48:22 -0600
Message-ID: <CABzPtB+CuaENkp3V1H1Sa=LA4JXZVxe=2U-ETO=9tscpxEb6ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
The motivation would be "attaching cover art". The great thing about Skos
is that you can have broader / narrower concepts and so "attaching [a
resource]" is just a broader concept. You don't have to mention the broader
concept in the annotation itself, it comes for free because the motivations
are skos concepts.

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 2:40 PM, Denenberg, Ray <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

> “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. “
>
>
>
> So “attaching’” would be a motivation, and “attaching cover art” a
> sub-motivation?    How do you express a sub-motivation?
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* jgjett@gmail.com [mailto:jgjett@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Jacob
> Jett
> *Sent:* Monday, February 02, 2015 3:31 PM
> *To:* Web Annotation
> *Subject:* 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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 20:49:30 UTC

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