W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

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

From: Doug Schepers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:25:30 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-159456834-1448414729-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I can't say I care much for `purpose` (since again, it seems like a 
bit of a misnomer, just like `role`), and I'd prefer `motive`, 
`intent`, or even `mode`, but I can live with `purpose` if it means 
that we don't use the word `role`.

Maybe this is a difference in how we're thinking about the Model. I 
see this property as doing either of 2 things:
1) signalling the intention of the user (which may admittedly be hard 
to discern based only on their UI decisions); or 
2) indicating what behavior the UA should have in processing or 
presenting the `body`/`target` (e.g. #113 ); since #113 isn't getting 
traction, I don't think it's appropriate to use terms that seem to 
imply behavior (like `role` or `purpose`).

Finally, I still think it seems extremely strange (and hard to 
describe) to have the same list of motivations be used for 2 seemingly
 entirely different purposes (e.g. as the value for `Motivation` on 
the annotation root and as a value on the 
`role`/`purpose`/`motive`/whatever). Either they're the same thing, 
and should have the same processing rules and property name, or 
they're different and should be treated as such (with their own use 
cases). Along with allowing multiple values as per #104, this seems 
like an arbitrary choice towards complexity, which is likely to bite 
us in the end.

But I seem to be in the minority here, so as I said, I can live with 

GitHub Notification of comment by shepazu
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 01:25:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC