Print

Print


Sorry, I did the bit.ly wrong. If you send this through your favorite RDFa parser, though, you should get the idea:
http://viaf.org/data/#norms
If you need me to explain I will. I suspect no one will have read this far, though.

Sent from my iPad

On May 8, 2013, at 8:00 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Here’s another example where VIAF has used a hash URIs that could be commented upon by some cataloger somewhere: http://viaf.org/data/#norms
>  
> Here’s an extraction of the surrounding graph (RDFa) for context: http://bit.ly/10jmCIA
>  
> Socrates could “annotate” the #norms “fragment” like so:
>  
> http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/68401641/annotation.ttl
>  
> Put a content-negotiable generic resource in front of that and it could even look fancy to a browser.
>  
> It will be a shame if people decide that “Annotations” are a better solution.
>  
> Jeff
>  
> From: Young,Jeff (OR) 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:57 PM
> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
>  
> This is one of those problems that goes away when people use httpRange-14. You can use the "extra" URI as a graph identifier and then say all kinds of things about that.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On May 8, 2013, at 6:23 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  
> 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
>  
>