Print

Print


You're seriously proposing duplicating every single rdf predicate just to
save a single triple in a model?

Clearly you cannot associate the creator with a literal as it has no
identity, thus it must be associated with the Annotation as a surrogate or
proxy for that identity. As it's not /really/ about the annotation, you
would need to have a completely parallel track of predicates that reflected
this indirection to avoid ambiguity.

And that would be about as disastrous a decision as I can possibly imagine.

Rob



On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Ford, Kevin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This does not preclude literal bodies.  It just means one might desire a
> property to identify the agent responsible for the content of the
> annotation.****
>
> ** **
>
> Kevin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Sanderson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2013 5:18 PM
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Sorry to bust the thread but ...****
>
> ** **
>
> On the other hand, and something to bear in mind, is the "who" being
> talked about with respect to the Annotation is the agent responsible for
> creating the Annotation, which is not necessarily the same as the source of
> the Description.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for providing another example for why literal bodies are a
> terrible idea.****
>
> ** **
>
> Rob****
>
>  ****
>