Re: URGENT: bodyValue

I'm personally in favor of jettisoning it. However, if I understand
correctly from today's call all four of the options you listed will cause
some form of issue for exiting CR so...

I'm not certain what we can do. Ivan?

Regards,

Jacob


_____________________________________________________
Jacob Jett
Research Assistant
Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
School of Information Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
(217) 244-2164
jjett2@illinois.edu


On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> One of our exit criteria is:
>
>     The bodyValue property of an Annotation.
>
> However according to the report (http://td.spec-ops.io/test-re
> sults/annotation-model/all.html), we have only one implementation of
> bodyValue (EF).  It's 1:4 in the annotation optionals section.
>
> I don't believe we'll get a second implementation of it, so do we:
>
> * Just remove the exit criterion, as it's an optional feature anyway
>     -- But there's a lot of optional features that are still exit criteria
> * Move the feature to an appendix, following Composite/List
>     -- But it wasn't marked at risk like those classes
> * Mark the feature at-risk and remove it before PR
>     -- But we rejected this approach for the other features in the same
> state;
> * Remove the feature completely
>     -- But this would be a big change without formal discussion
>
>
> My preference hasn't changed, which would be to remove it completely.
> That we don't have implementations that use it, and we do have
> implementations that use TextualBody is evidence that the rationale for it
> (TextualBody is too hard) is unjustified.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Semantic Architect
> The Getty Trust
> Los Angeles, CA 90049
>