 |
 |
+1 cheers stuart 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. > > Jörg > > > 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. > -- Stuart Yeates Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/