Re: [web-annotation] Relationship between Motivations and Actions (from schema.org)

> 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.

I think the scope of the WG should be to create a reasonable, flat set
 of top level motivations that other communities can build from.  
We're not going to come up with the complete list of all things that 
people want to use annotation for, we've known that since the 
beginning.

This top level will allow what interoperability is possible between 
otherwise independent communities, as we can trace `xx:critiquing` and
 `yy:reviewing` both back to `oa:assessing` to know that they're 
conceptually related. At this stage, I think we should focus on 
ensuring that the ones we have should _not_ be in a hierarchy, and if 
there are some that are conceptually narrower than others, we would 
instead _remove_ them from the list.

There are also activities specified in ActivityStreams, including 
Like, Dislike, Flag, Question and so on. I don't think we should pick 
sides with which to align with, but instead allow the communities that
 use one or the other (or indeed both, hence skos:Concept) to create 
the narrower motivations for the alignment.

See: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#activity-types

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by azaroth42
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/248#issuecomment-222733903
 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 15:56:16 UTC