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

@gsergiu a few things based on your comments:
> I also think that is needed to define a clear relationship between 
the body and target ....

Relating the body and the target directly is something that @tilgovi 
is interested in, but it's not what either `Motivation` or `role` (or 
whatever it gets renamed to) is for--[quoting from the Model doc about
 the 
`role`](http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/#roles-for-external-resources):

> The reason for including the External Resource in the Annotation.

It's not about relating body and target, but rather body and 
annotation.

Based on that assumption, you said:
> Still as this field is meant to express the concrete relationship 
between target and body, I'm tempted to say that the field should't 
reside either in body, nor in target!

And, if that were it's use (to "express the concrete relationship 
between target and body"), then yes, it'd be in the wrong place...but 
that's not what it's for, so it's probably fine where it is. :smiley:

And regarding the "Object Modeling best practices" biased, keep in 
mind that the Web Annotation Data Model is a triple-based, RDF data 
model and not (nor has it ever been) an Object Model--despite growing 
confusion to the contrary.

The "triple-ness" of the model can't just be willfully ignored. It can
 be "hidden" (perhaps with greater cost than we realize presently...),
 but it can't be eliminated without starting over--which I hope 
everyone agrees is a Bad Thing.

Let's all get back (if we can) on the main topic of renaming the 
`role` and `hasRole` key/terms. Model reinvention shouldn't (keep...) 
happening on GitHub issues. If anyone feels it's necessary, put up 
some wiki pages and mailing list posts--please. :smile: 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by BigBlueHat
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/112#issuecomment-165149841
 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:44:53 UTC