Sent from my iPad
On May 10, 2013, at 21:48, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Your 2c is well worth it :-). I wish to mention, however, that library bibliographic data does not treat scholarly articles in any depth because libraries, with few exceptions, do not catalog them. Article metadata (journal and newspaper) is produced by the abstracting and indexing services, which libraries then subscribe to.  This doesn't mean that BIBFRAME could not or will not be extended to include metadata elements that are important for scholarly articles, but that will not be an early focus, IMO, of the effort.
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexing_and_abstracting_service
> On 5/10/13 4:23 AM, Simeon Warner wrote:
>> I was recently looking around for ontologies that might be used to express/exchange information about scholarly articles and the different versions produced by publishers and held in repositories (like arXiv.org that I'm involved with). BIBFRAME was appealing because I think that "FRBR-lite" Work/Instance model of BIBFRAME is a practical and useful level of granularity. I'm also interested in RDF expressions of library data as we are creating a new discovery system in our library where all our MARC records are being mapped into RDF in order to merge them with additional information held in systems other than our LMS.
>> I've been following with interest the discussion of annotation in BIBFRAME and am left wondering what special value is added by BIBFRAME adopting a model not-quite-compatible with OAC. From  it seems that the BIBFRAME "special sauce" regarding annotations is twofold: first is a specialized set of types of annotation tied to community needs, and second is a simple syntax/structure for the use of literals. I don't see that either of these is a compelling reason for a different approach. The specialized set of annotation types very nicely maps onto the (more readily extensible) oa:motivatedBy model where instances of oa:Motivation could be usefully subclassed. The use of literal bodies can be handled with the (admittedly slightly more cumbersome) oa:ContentAsText mechanism. A possible good side-effect is that this might discourage the use of "not on the web" literal annotations except in cases such as those Karen Coyle mentioned where user tags perhaps "deserve to be literal strings, dangling off the edge of information space".
>> My conclusion is that the value-add of BIBFRAME is not in its annotation model and I think it would be better to promote a profiled use of OAC to support interchange within the target community (while also supporting uses by others not yet imagined, presumably one of the goals of going the RDF route).
>>  http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/20130430.html
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet