I'd like to stress this point. Please reject bf:annotationBodyLiteral
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.