Re: Motivations

Yes. The spec covers extending motivations here:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#extending-motivations

So a motivation that's more precise than oa:linking could be used for
linking cover art, or reviewing as a more precise motivation than
oa:describing.

Rob

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:

> Right! The further description would be a property (or properties) of the
> body (or the target, speaking more generally than just Bibframe and cover
> art), in the communities native vocabulary.
>
> And yes, we already have oa:linking so we would just make a narrower
> oa:linking_cover_art motivation.
>
>
> 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 2:45 PM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure something that narrow is needed.
>>
>> There is also an "oa:linking" already, fwiw:
>> "The motivation that represents an untyped link to a resource related to
>> the Target."
>>
>> My guess is that you'd further describe (perhaps in your own vocabulary)
>> that the resource related to the target is indeed cover art (vs. the inside
>> flap, spine, etc).
>>
>> Maybe?
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:40 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*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305