- From: Paolo Ciccarese via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 15:40:20 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@jjett I would still change 'reviewing' to 'assessing' as it has a more generic and less formal nature. That will allow other to extend with more specific ones. Although, this is a specific issue that should be discussed separately #249 @jjett the motivation is why the Annotation was created, which is very different, in my opinion, from the 'kind of content', that is why we have 'role'. I could have a Motivation 'bookmarking' and that could include some tags as well (but the motivation is not tagging). I also don't thing that schema.org is close to 'expectations' which are not actions but follow up actions that are expected to happen following an annotation action with a specific motivation. That said, I am ok with the flat list of concepts that we have now. However, as soon as we introduce new ones, I would argue it will become increasingly hard to keep all this flat. So I feel it is just a matter of time. I am not expecting us to come up with a hierarchy for the specifications though. -- GitHub Notification of comment by pciccarese Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/248#issuecomment-222728879 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:40:22 UTC