- From: Doug Schepers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:25:30 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
I can't say I care much for `purpose` (since again, it seems like a bit of a misnomer, just like `role`), and I'd prefer `motive`, `intent`, or even `mode`, but I can live with `purpose` if it means that we don't use the word `role`. Maybe this is a difference in how we're thinking about the Model. I see this property as doing either of 2 things: 1) signalling the intention of the user (which may admittedly be hard to discern based only on their UI decisions); or 2) indicating what behavior the UA should have in processing or presenting the `body`/`target` (e.g. #113 ); since #113 isn't getting traction, I don't think it's appropriate to use terms that seem to imply behavior (like `role` or `purpose`). Finally, I still think it seems extremely strange (and hard to describe) to have the same list of motivations be used for 2 seemingly entirely different purposes (e.g. as the value for `Motivation` on the annotation root and as a value on the `role`/`purpose`/`motive`/whatever). Either they're the same thing, and should have the same processing rules and property name, or they're different and should be treated as such (with their own use cases). Along with allowing multiple values as per #104, this seems like an arbitrary choice towards complexity, which is likely to bite us in the end. But I seem to be in the minority here, so as I said, I can live with `purpose`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by shepazu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/112#issuecomment-159456834 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 01:25:32 UTC