Re: [web-annotation] Rename `role` to `motive`

Well ... I'm working on providing an implementation of the standard, 
and reading this thread is not clear at all what the ticket is about. 
So I searched in the documentation and I assume you are talking about 
this section: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#roles-for-external-resources

I'm not a native speaker, but I strongly agree that "role" is the 
wrong naming, as roles are attributes to persons, not to artifacts. 
see 
http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#roles-for-external-resources
  
1. So before voting on a name, I think that we should have a clear and
 correct definition, the existing one is not a convincing one: 
"As well as Textual Bodies, roles can be associated with External 
Resources. This is done using the Specific Resource pattern, as the 
role specifies the way in which the resource is used in the context of
 the Annotation in the same way as a Selector describes the segment or
 a State describes the representation"

So ... if I understand correctly, the "roles" should define the 
relationship between the External Resource identified by an URI and 
the current Target or Body (as external resources can be used both in 
Body and Target). At the first glance ... I would say that the 
intention is to say that the ExternalResource "serves as" ..<value>.. 
to the target or body.

"intent" is a consequence of a "motivation" .. so I don't find it to 
be a good name, even if this is close to the "purpose". 

2. I would have another modeling question, if this "role" is an 
extension of the motivation, shouldn't we consider extending the 
motivation, by adding the "targetRole" and "bodyRole", instead of 
placing the roles to Body and Target? This will have the advantage 
that the motivation will have a clear representation of kind of 
message.

As I see in the examples .. the tagging is invoked very often. So ... 
we have the motivation "tagging" and the role "tagging". Isn't this 
redundant information? Shoudn't the "role" depend on the Motivation? 
e.g. Shouldn't we prevent by design to use motivation "bookmarking" 
with body role "tagging"?

3. I suppose that the roles should come from controlled vocabularies, 
but I was able to find only "tagging" and "describing" as examples in 
the specifications, which are in fact motivations. So ... once again 
what is this "role" about?  Souldn't we try to build first a 
decent/representative controlled vocabulary for roles, before trying 
to find a proper name? (the contolled vocabulary will contain examples
 that must be consistent with the definition)

Sorry .. about the criticism and bringing a complete different view, 
but I think it is worth to take it in consideration, an think of 
consistency of annotations, now that the model is quite complex.

Br,

Sergiu Gordea

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by gsergiu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/112#issuecomment-165068735
 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 11:09:08 UTC