On 09/05/13 09:47, Jörg Prante wrote:
> I'd like to stress this point. Please reject bf:annotationBodyLiteral
> from Bibframe.
> The fact is, more than one library will welcome bf:annotationBodyLiteral
> for their favorite chunks of catalog enrichment data and add up their
> annotations simply as an opaque literal, which is hard to parse, and to
> reintegrate into the Semantic Web. A daunting task for us.
> One of the worse traditions of MARC based library catalog format was
> often providing a "catch all" subfield. bf:annotationBodyLiteral reminds
> me of this. It encourages stealth annotations instead of investigating
> the possibility of new annotation classes.
> Am 08.05.13 22:48, schrieb Robert Sanderson:
>> * It's a slippery slope to simply including ALL resources inline as
>> literals, such as SVG and CSS, which should have identities. This
>> would be terrible for interoperability and consistency.
Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/