No. Zelda is a series that benefits greatly from linearity, that has a weak story, and whose 3D games have constantly been chastised for having a poor overworld.. This is a terrible match for Open Worlds. Zelda has always been linear, with the series becoming more linear as the series evolved. The original LoZ was a linear game in that the world itself was comprised of nothing but hallways. You could go out of order, but that was it.
As the series evolved and puzzles were included into dungeons, the games become more strictly linear with MM being the first game to completely removed any sense of non-linearity. Allowing dungeons to build on each other created a better experience. Exploration was done naturally by crafting an interesting world that people wanted to explore, even though Termina has the smallest and most linear 3D overworld of the series.
Open Worlds have four critical elements: Exploration, Freedom, the Overworld and Storytelling. Zelda doesn't excel in any of these. The player is not free. Link is very limited. He is the hero, he cannot attack people. He moves at a snail's pace (even in BOTW). He has a single main weapon. These limitations are used to challenge the player and present them with puzzles based off these limitations.
The story telling is weak, even in games like MM and TP where it's at its peak. It's simply not something Nintendo cares for.
3D Zelda has consistently been chastised for its poor overworld. And notice that the bigger and more open it is, the more hate it gets. Not counting BOTW, as far as how the overworlds rank from the least amount of hatred to the most, I'd say it's roughly: MM > OoT > TP > SS > tWW. And even in SS, the open sky gets a lot more flack than the linear surface.
Exploration is another area where Zelda has been chastised. Every "exploration segment" that has been introduced to us has not been received well by the playerbase. Triforce Hunt? Hated. Dowsing segments? Hated. Tears of Light? I personally liked it, but most people hate it. Even in the original, the biggest flaw people tend to see with it is the OCD "exploration" in bombing every single wall and burning every tree. The only time exploration was well received was when Nintendo wasn't pushing it. And that's in MM. In MM there is no exploration segment, people just wanted to explore because the world was interesting and not tediously large.
Zelda doesn't have any of the components that make a good Open World and instead thrives off of linearity (primarily for its puzzles). BOTW still doesn't have any of the core elements that make a good Open World. There's very little freedom. Link moves like he has hemorrhoids, can't choose a playstyle, can't make story choices, and can't do unheroic things. The little freedom you do have is the ability to go out of order, which doesn't mean much compared to other Open World titles. The story is even worse than the previous titles. The world is obnoxiously large, empty, and boring. It's the same as all the other boring worlds, but with the faults simply multiplied on a larger scale. Because of the boring overworld and the uninteresting store/lore, the exploration itself is tedious and unrewarding.
To be honest, you really do need all four of the core concepts if you want to make a decent Open World. And as long as Nintendo remains uninterested in developing a deeper story, I don't think the Open World genre is a good match for them. That said, even among Nintendo franchises, Zelda is the worst pick for Open World IMO. Every other franchise at least has some element that would excel in an Open World title or haven't tapped into 3D gaming and could potentially be reworked into an Open World.