Hi Lukas,

>  From the examples given I can't exactly figure out what the meaning of
> Annotation Agent is.
-- In short, it is the entity responsible for *creating* the Annotation.  Based on your email, I can see how the heading confounds; I'll be sure to modify it if I use it again.

> the NYPL
> asserts that the NYTimes article is in fact a review about the bibframe
> work. Or it identifies that the NYPL publishes information that there
> is a review about the work in the NYTimes that might be of interest to
> the NYPL patrons.
-- It's the second sentence:  NYPL (a source, and a trusted one we presume) says "here is the NYTimes review of this Work."

> Then, the nature of the "target" relation. Does the target point to a
> BIBFRAME metadata representation of the NYTimes article (containing a
> URI to the actual article), or directly to the NYTimes article, or can
> it be both?
-- We're staring to think it might be best to provide both options: link to metadata resource and/or the review itself.  The metadata resource provides additional information that might aid in the display/comprehension of the "target" but being able to link directly to the target bypasses the need to parse an intemediary metadata resource.  Ultimately, I think community practice will inform actual practice: link to one or the other or both.  Other thoughts?

> Then: there are two reviews, one annotation points to a bibframe:work
> (NYTimes article), the other to a bibframe:instance (WashingtonPost
> article). What is the difference? Shouldn't it both be just Work or
> Instance? Not sure if a newspaper article should be a Work or an
> Instance.
-- Every time I saw this variation in my own slides I knew this would raise a question, and understandbly so.  I think both examples present perfectly viable possibilities, which is why I did it.  Community practice or rules may eventually guide whether the targets of Annotation resources should be to Work resources or Instance resources, or whether the linked-to target is dependent on the type of Annotation.  For example, the target of Review annotations might point to a Work while the target of a CoverArt annotation points to an Instance.

Does this help?

Thanks for bringing these questions to the listserv.  Much easier to provide fuller answers without a 140 character restriction (though that can be a good thing too). :)

Warmly,

Kevin




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lukas Koster
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:34 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] Annotation issues
> 
> I attended Kevin Ford's presentation at SWIB12. Unfortunately the sound
> of the skype session was too bad to understand everything Kevin said.
> The recording http://3windmills.com/kefo-swib12-bfi/ is much better.
> 
> After watching the recording I have a couple of questions about the
> Annotation core class. I already asked Kevin a couple of questions on
> twitter about this after the SWIB12 Skype session. Fro completeness I
> reproduce them here, as well as Kevin's answers.
> 
> - Q: Annotation: isn't it just "relationships"? Why need extra entity?
> (http://twitter.com/lukask/status/273749651759439873)
> - A: Annotation can associate two Works (or Instances) not controlled
> by the agent creating the Annotation. Provides buffer area.
> Still, you raise a good question. We've debated this a number of times.
> 
> - Q: can Annotations be used a) to flexibly extend the model? b) for
> adding provenance data? Etc.
> (http://twitter.com/lukask/status/273749990894092288)
> - A: We're wondering about "b," but we've not done any work on it. I
> think "a" is quite possible, and I've wondered the same.
> 
> Now, in the presentation Annotations are called "assertions about the
> other core class elements", holding all kinds of possible additional
> information (reviews, holdings, book cover images, administrative data,
> etc.). It is also said: "annotations are additional assertions".
> There are a couple of examples from which you can see that an
> Annotation has at least three possible relations: "annotates" (one of
> the core classes), "target", which points at some external(?) entity
> (like the book cover, or an article), and an unnamed relation that
> identifies the "Annotation Agent". Besides that each Annotation
> probably has a Title or Name property, and hopefully a Timestamp
> property (to be able to define provenance).
>  From the examples given I can't exactly figure out what the meaning of
> Annotation Agent is. It could be provenance information: the NYPL
> asserts that the NYTimes article is in fact a review about the bibframe
> work. Or it identifies that the NYPL publishes information that there
> is a review about the work in the NYTimes that might be of interest to
> the NYPL patrons.
> Then, the nature of the "target" relation. Does the target point to a
> BIBFRAME metadata representation of the NYTimes article (containing a
> URI to the actual article), or directly to the NYTimes article, or can
> it be both?
> Then: there are two reviews, one annotation points to a bibframe:work
> (NYTimes article), the other to a bibframe:instance (WashingtonPost
> article). What is the difference? Shouldn't it both be just Work or
> Instance? Not sure if a newspaper article should be a Work or an
> Instance.
> 
> 
> 
> Lukas Koster
> Library Systems Coordinator
> Library and Information Systems Department Library of the University of
> Amsterdam
> Web: http://uba.uva.nl
> Mobile site: http://m.uba.uva.nl
> Digital Library: http://lib.uva.nl