- From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 15:11:06 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
I am -1 for this idea and +1 to what Ivan said. Part of the whole purpose of using flat and extensible vocabulary for motivations was to allow particular domain communities to make their own extensions in accordance to their particular needs. Moreover, a motivation was always intended as an explanation of the _kind of content_ that the annotation's body contains. Much like the purpose is intended to provide a basic explanation of what role the body's content plays in annotations with multiple bodies. This doesn't actually seem to overlap with schema.org's action at all. A closer fit would be the "expectation" property proposed by the Morris's (Bob and Phil) back in the community group's early days. As I recall we elected not to pursue it since "expectations/actions to be taken" are also fairly domain dependent. IMO, annotations are orthogonal to intentions behind the schema.org vocabulary and we shouldn't align ourselves too closely to it. We're already compatible with it and I think that's good enough. -- GitHub Notification of comment by jjett Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/248#issuecomment-222719552 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:11:08 UTC