LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME Archives

BIBFRAME Archives


BIBFRAME@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME Home

BIBFRAME  May 2013

BIBFRAME May 2013

Subject:

Re: Documents and improvements

From:

Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 6 May 2013 08:53:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (29 lines)

Rob, Paulo, Herbert,

It is important for the BIBFRAME Early Experimenters to gain consensus on specific use cases and requirements before any collaboration could be useful.  Casting the initial BIBFRAME requirements to "accommodate and distinguish expert-, automated-, and self-generated metadata, including annotations (reviews, comments) and usage data." [1] as Web Annotations isn't something that was initially well understood, but from my perspective, the progress around this mental shift has been quite impressive.  The BIBFRAME EE group has agreed to share work early and often for supporting such collaboration. In that light I'd consider the draft BIBFRAME annotation doc a start of such a process you've suggested, not the end.  

The general architecture that OA has defined includes a large set of use cases that are not the same as the more resource-centric ones that the EE community is focused on at the moment.  Further, BIBFRAME  concept / carrier distinuctions are important to its underlying model, so tying annotations to any Type list that doesn't align to this will be problematic.  As such, an initial take on a smaller solution space (rather than the general one you're addressing) is bound to differ. Talking with Ray Denenberg (the Editor for this doc) he sees the compatibility and interoperability differences to be minor to negligible, so it may be that we're not so far off on the compatibility after all.  My understanding is you'll be meeting with folks form LC this week and I look forward to hearing how these discussions go. 

The requirements are different. But as you've mentioned, there is overlap between the target communities and working together on supporting the needs of this overlap certainly makes sense. 

--
Eric Miller
President, Zepheira "The Art of Data"
http://zepheira.com/ tel:+1.617.395.0229


[1] A Bibliographic Framework for the Digital Age (October 31, 2011) http://www.loc.gov/marc/transition/
news/framework-103111.html


On May 3, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> Dear Sally, Ray and all,
> 
> As co-chairs and co-editors of the W3C Open Annotation Community Group, Paolo, Herbert and I would again like to invite members of the BIBFRAME group to continue the discussion of interoperable annotation on the mailing list for the W3C Community Group. There is neither a cost nor membership requirement to joining.
> 
> We feel it is fair to say that the Open Annotation effort has gained significant momentum, being the 6th largest community group with many active and ongoing discussions. However there is always room for improvement, and we still believe that both BIBFRAME and Open Annotation would benefit from an open discussion of the issues that resulted in the divergence which is clear in the annotation document.
> 
> It is regrettable that the BIBFRAME annotation model is neither compatible nor interoperable with the Open Annotation Data Model, especially given the significant overlap between the target communities of Open Annotation and BIBFRAME.  We are disappointed that prior efforts to engage with the BIBFRAME community regarding annotation did not yield more constructive results to this stage. We hope that our invitation to discuss issues on the W3C Community Group will be met positively as we feel we owe it to our communities to work towards convergence.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
July 2011
June 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager