quoted from the OWB dev list:
From my point of view this is a conceptual mismatch: One spec uses the
annotation just for binding specific beans to a literal name, the other one
uses it for differentiate between multiple beans.
Even this should be no immediate issue for JSR 299's typesafe resolution
mechanism, if a single bean is further qualified with specific @Named name,
I do not feel well, if people are going to use this annotation as a
qualifying one like @Named("stage_test") on multiple beans. The EL namespace
gets polluted with unresolvable names and developers become potentially
confused by the ambiguous usage of the annotation.
In brief: Identifiers (like EL names or Spring bean IDs) does not feel like
being qualifiers (e.g. @Asynchronous) from my point of view.
Reusing it for defining the EL name does make sense semantically to
me. In general qualifiers are used in resolution, in the "by name"
case, we have a special qualifier.