- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:56:20 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
In any of these documents the list of such values is based on rough consensus, because it is very difficult (and/or time consuming) to make a very systematic case for every term that is added or not. My proposal (also motivated by the priorities we have to set for our own time and work) is: 1. We keep the current set intact as part of the document. As I said before, we should give the benefit of the doubt for a group of people who have already discussed this in the OA Community Group. 2. There will be a Candidate Recommendation phase, which is the time when developer and/or users would, among other things, use those terms and possibly come up with new ones. We can explicitly call out, when going to CR, that we expect implementers to propose new terms (for motivations as well as for roles). The methodology described by @shepazu, i.e., to ask for a clear use case for a new value, would be guiding and we can then decide whether we agree in adding those or not. That being said, in @shepazu's approach, it says: > What I'm suggesting is that as a best practice for adding a motivation value to the list, we create a concrete use case (or set of use cases) that show how a UA behavior for each motivation value might be distinct from any of the other motivation values. I am not sure what "OA behavior" means in this respect. I can very well imagine that two different motivations may not need to any difference in OA behavior, it simply helps the user of an application to categorize his/her annotations. I do not see these values as defining, necessarily, a *behavior* for an application. Ie, I would prefer to ask for a clear use case for a new term that is clearly different than what is already there and is not very application specific before adding it to our list. However, I do *not* think we should discuss this criterium in detail right now. *If and when* a proposal comes up during Candidate Recommendation phase, we will discuss it on its individual merit and establish a (rough) consensus. Let us defer this when we face real proposals. This allows us to move on right now. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/113#issuecomment-160123417 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 27 November 2015 11:56:25 UTC