- From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:20:45 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
+1. Is there a way to propose that we move forward with the roles in hand, creator/annotator (required) and generatedBy (optional) and leave a note somewhere (in the spec or elsewhere) that our decision doesn't preclude the extension of the model with additional roles as determined on a community by community basis? That way we can mark this issue as resolved. Regards, Jacob On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Paolo Ciccarese <notifications@github.com> wrote: > You could technically have a more complex workflow with more roles > involved > (curatedBy, reviewedBy, approvedBy...). > > But I believe those are not the norm and they depend on the use cases and > communities. So I agree with you to delegating that aspect to the > communities. > > I recall somebody on the call bringing up the importance of roles... many > weeks ago. > But I cannot remember who she was. > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> > wrote: > > > > I guess the question is: Should the data model specify more roles, or > > should that be left to extensions. > > > > My preference is just for creator/annotator as recommended, and > generating > > software as optional, then leave everything else to further communities > to > > define as needed. Beyond curated, I haven't heard any further roles > > suggested? > > > > — > > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > > <https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/7#issuecomment-91269506>. > > > > > > -- > Dr. Paolo Ciccarese > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-2703 > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/7#issuecomment-91277421>. > -- GitHub Notif of comment by jjett See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/7#issuecomment-91279461
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 16:21:00 UTC