 |
 |
On 7/23/13 12:26 PM, Ray Denenberg wrote: > > > So, in fact, there is no formal "Body" defined. (There is the concept > of a Body, defined to be the aggregate of triples corresponding to > properties defined for that Annotation class, but there is no property > hasBody formally defined.) > The result of using specific body types, and eliminating the general "body," is that no annotations can be created unless the needed type has already been defined. This is an obvious barrier to innovation, and is the situation we find ourselves in now with MARC. There is no way to predict, a priori, a finite list of annotation body types, and in particular one cannot create types today for future technologies. By subbing the annotation bodies to "oa:hasBody" (or a "bf:hasBody" property if you prefer) the person (or machine) creating annotations has a way to create annotations that have not been pre-defined. While there are some things about Open Annotation that do not fit our specific use case, it has successfully created an admirably /open/ design. kc > On the other hand though, the concept of Target remains the same, and > is still the same concept as an OA Target. So, you could legitimately > argue that > > *bf:annotates -> subPropertyOf -> oa:hasTarget* > > still makes sense, I suppose. Does it really though, with all the > other differences? > > --Ray > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet