Re: Motivation: Gerund or Infinitive

Two quick things come to mind:
1. (un)known implementations of the current OA specification
2. oa:motivatedBy as the predicate

oa:motivatedBy comment
has potentially different meaning than
oa:motivatedBy commenting

The first (to me at least) implies that my annotation was motivated by a
prior comment I found--which I'm presumably referencing somewhere or other.

The second more clearly states that my annotation is motivated by this ugly
gerund thing, commenting. ;)

The gerund form also becomes useful when you add more than one. My
annotation may be motivated by bookmarking, commenting, and tagging all at
the same time (vs. motivated by bookmark, comment, tag).

You're kind to offer the editorial help (and I'm sure Rob will bug you
front now on for more of it ;) ), but I'm not sure we're ready to change
oa:motivatedBy and if not, then this change to the infinitive form causes
legibility problems that exceed the annoyance of typing "ing" over and
over. :)

It's the color it is. I'd vote we leave it alone.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Denenberg, Ray <> wrote:

> During today’s call there was discussion about motivations – what form
> should they take. For those of you who were not on the call I want to be
> clear, nobody is talking about going back to subclassing, everyone is happy
> (as far as I can tell) to express motivation as an instance of
> oa:Motivation (a subclass of skos:Concept).   There is still discussion
> however about whether these should be nouns or verbs, e.g.  “highlighting”
> or “highlight” -  and let’s be clear here, “highlighting” is the noun and
> “highlight” is the verb – “highlighting” is a gerund (which is a noun) and
> “highlight” is short for “to highlight”, the infinitive form.  This seems
> to cause some confusion so rather than talk about “noun vs. verb”  I
> suggest that we express the issue as “gerund vs. infinitive form”.
> I prefer the infinitive form, and there are others who also prefer it,
> though I don’t know how many. I have not heard anyone say that they prefer
> the gerund form, for reasons other than that they don’t care one way or the
> other, that’s the way it is now,  and so why change it. (Though I am not
> trying to speak for everyone so if someone has a substantive reason please
> speak up.)
> Anyway, here is my point.  Ivan’s argument against changing this seemed to
> be that it would create a lot of work for us, namely editing, and we should
> not create editing work without good reason.   My question is, what editing
> would be required, other than to the table in 3.4 and also a few examples?
>    I think it would take about 20 minutes worth of work and I would be
> happy to volunteer to do it.
> Ray

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 20:24:20 UTC