W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Justify each Motivation with a behavior

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:56:20 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-160123417-1448625379-sysbot+gh@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 

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 

This allows us to move on right now. 

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 27 November 2015 11:56:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC