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: BIBFRAME annotation

From:

"Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 8 May 2013 16:41:41 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (358 lines)

Dear Owen,

I would like to address the "less clear" types of BIBFRAME Annotations you call out first:

> bf:ContributorBio - maybe if provenance is key, although it may depend
> on the type of biographical information being asserted - feels like it
> needs breaking down further

> bf:TableofContents - is this debated? Or
> likely to need multiple equivalent assertions? Feels like this is just
> a straightforward property of the work

> bf:SampleText - while I can see
> that there could be many examples of 'sampletext' for a single item, it
> doesn't seem likely we care 'who' made the claim it was sample text?
> Feels like a different kind of relationship to an annotation

> bf:PublisherDescription - this feels wrong in that why not have
> bf:Description, with the annotation asserting it was created by the
> 'publisher'? A 'description' seems squarely in 'annotation' territory,
> while a specific description assigned to a specific body feels like it
> could be handled without resorting to annotation

Very brief history: Annotation was proposed for the BIBFRAME model, at which point we started evaluating the idea along with the model in general.  We get a lot of extra material with bib records, such as publisher descriptions, contributor bios, tables of contents, etc.  These are often recorded in the 856, and we've been heavily evaluating BIBFRAME via our MARC records.  What you are seeing is a very, very early attempt to rationalize what is commonly found in the 856 (at least our 856s).  And you are also seeing, with these entries in the vocabulary, the outcome of a first cut to get things moving versus a hardened decision.  As we've said before, it's a draft and things will change.  (Regardless of the origin - MARC 856 - these extras are valuable additions to our records with a number of potential uses that we want to leverage in a future bibliographic ecosystem.)

One the one hand, I completely understand (and can agree with) your assessment of bf:PublisherDescription; I've had the same thought before.  It might be better simply called Description without reference to the source.  Not all descriptions are the ones created by publishers.  ContributorBio's definition could likely use some attention to make clear the distinction what type of biographical information.

On the other hand, and something to bear in mind, is the "who" being talked about with respect to the Annotation is the agent responsible for creating the Annotation, which is not necessarily the same as the source of the Description.  Not only is this an important distinction, but I can suddenly appreciate how this could lead to some confusion and I've taken note to tread carefully (and review earlier statements).  The consumer must consider his/her "trust" in the annotator and, separately, his/her "trust" in the content creator (also, cue a few over-the-top and off-topic emails about the notion of "trust").  So, the Description Annotation may be asserted by LC (we created the Annotation), but that's not to say we created/authored the description itself.  The same could be applied to SampleText and Tables of Contents.  The Annotation is a way for us to publicize (if we want to) that we have SampleText (often specially formatted) or Tables of Contents, which have traditionally been treated as "add-ons" (for the lack of a better characterization) to the bibliographic record.  These extras can assist a patron evaluating a potential resource (and, if indexed, can help with search), but are they "core" to the description?

In the end, this is really about exploring the extensibility of the model and the empowerment of actors outside the traditional bibliographic universe.  For example, a service could set itself up as a clearinghouse, quite independent of libraries or publishers, for this type of information.  Those clearinghouses would be the creators of those Annotations, even though they may providing access to tables of contents or sample text (or something else we've not yet thought of but which would nevertheless be a positive addition that would help our users).

Further thoughts?


As for this:

> I think I'm willing to accept that if they fulfil any of
> the criteria above (provenance is key, or 1,2,3 listed) then there is a
> justification to use an 'annotation' approach.

I ask that BIBFRAME Annotation be evaluated on its definition and use cases (while acknowledging there may be overlap) versus the Open Annotation requirements, to which those numbers refer.


Yours,
Kevin




> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owen Stephens
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:29 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
>
> Thanks Kevin for this attempt - I, at least, found it helpful in terms
> of thinking about how BIBFRAME uses 'annotations'.
>
> There is clearly a lot of 'grey area' in terms of what might be
> regarded as an annotation and what not. While acknowledging the
> criticism others have made that dealing in 'facts' is problematic, I
> think I understand the idea that there are things that we might easily
> get consensus on and those that we might not, or have valid multiple
> views on - but this is a spectrum.
>
> In this context it makes sense that Annotations are used when it is
> important to the provenance (especially the 'who') of a statement. The
> issue of Provenance is mentioned by Rob Sanderson as part of the
> rationale for developing additional vocabulary/ontology for the Open
> Annotation work in one of his recent emails. The other work on
> Provenance for triples has also been mentioned, but clearly the current
> situation is that OA creates a clear mechanism for this)
>
> The other examples of requirements from the Open Annotation work given
> by Rob were (numbering assigned by me here):
>
> 1) A highlighted span of text.  There is an obvious target segment of a
> resource (the object), but there is no body/comment (the subject).  As
> a triple must have a subject, this could not be expressed.  A second
> example of this would be a bookmark where the body is also implicit.
>
> 2) An annotation that refers to multiple segments of a resource,
> multiple resources or multiple segments of multiple resources.  In this
> case there would be multiple objects, which is also not possible to be
> expressed in RDF.
>
> 3) Where there are, equivalently, multiple comments, such as a comment
> in English and the same comment in French and the user agent should
> determine which is more appropriate to show to the user.
>
> While not an expert, (1) and (2) seem clear to me. I'm less clear why
> (3) can't be handled as a language tag - although I would see an
> argument that a translation is in itself an annotation of a kind :)
>
> I don't see anything in Bibframe equivalent to (1) - all bibframe
> annotations are intended to point at a resource, not a fragment as far
> as I can see?
> I don't see anything in Bibframe equivalent to (2) - all bibframe
> annotations are intended to point at a single resource, not multiple
> resources as far as I can see?
> I think (3) could apply to Bibframe - specifically in terms of
> bf:coverArt
>
> Having thought this through for me the first question is whether all
> Bibframe 'annotations' as currently proposed should be expressed as
> annotations. I think I'm willing to accept that if they fulfil any of
> the criteria above (provenance is key, or 1,2,3 listed) then there is a
> justification to use an 'annotation' approach.
>
> Out of the annotation classes given
> in http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/ the ones that strike
> me as falling into my interpretation of the criteria for 'annotations'
> are:
>
> bf:Review (provenance is key)
> bf:CoverArt (assuming this is an image of the cover - equivalence
> between different images of  the cover but all ultimately making the
> same assertion of 'it looks like this')
>
> The others seem less clear to me:
>
> bf:ContributorBio - maybe if provenance is key, although it may depend
> on the type of biographical information being asserted - feels like it
> needs breaking down further bf:TableofContents - is this debated? Or
> likely to need multiple equivalent assertions? Feels like this is just
> a straightforward property of the work bf:SampleText - while I can see
> that there could be many examples of 'sampletext' for a single item, it
> doesn't seem likely we care 'who' made the claim it was sample text?
> Feels like a different kind of relationship to an annotation
> bf:PublisherDescription - this feels wrong in that why not have
> bf:Description, with the annotation asserting it was created by the
> 'publisher'? A 'description' seems squarely in 'annotation' territory,
> while a specific description assigned to a specific body feels like it
> could be handled without resorting to annotation
>
> Anyway - I guess my first question (I have a second for a separate
> email!) is - for each case where annotation is being used at the moment
> in BIBFRAME, does it really make sense, and if so, why?
>
> Owen
>
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 6 May 2013, at 21:07, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Karen, all,
>
> In reading your email (the below and others) as well as one or two
> emails from other individuals, it became clear that we missed the
> forest for the trees when it comes to basic definition.  So, I wanted
> to offer up an answer to the basic question "What is a BIBFRAME
> Annotation?"
>
> I make no claims to have addressed all of the questions you raise, but
> I wanted to start with the basics before moving on to more specific
> details, such as whether BIBFRAME Annotations are end-user-oriented or
> cataloger-oriented, which is a question you asked in a separate email I
> believe.  Naturally, if this spawns additional questions, please ask.
>
> --------
>
> What is a BIBFRAME Annotation?
>
> A BIBFRAME Annotation is a resource that enhances our knowledge about
> the resource it annotates (the target resource).  A BIBFRAME Annotation
> manages this in one of two ways.  One way is for the BIBFRAME
> Annotation to facilitate an association between two resources by means
> of relationships.  The resource being annotated is the target of the
> annotation while the resource that otherwise enhances our knowledge of
> the target resource is the body, or payload, of the annotation.  The
> BIBFRAME Annotation, in this case, serves to say, "Resource A annotates
> Resource B, the target resource."  The other way is for the BIBFRAME
> Annotation to be itself the carrier of additional information about the
> target resource.  In this alternative, the BIBFRAME Annotation does not
> function as a lightweight abstraction layer bridging two resources, but
> an end resource that further enhances our knowledge about the target
> resource.  As a matter of focus, a BIBFRAME Annotation generally
> refines our understanding of the target resource as a whole versus any
> one particular aspect or segment of the target resource.
>
> Another distinguishing characteristic about a BIBFRAME Annotation, as
> distinct from a BIBFRAME Work or BIBFRAME Instance, is that *who*
> asserted the Annotation is of paramount importance.  The *who* being
> the agent stating, "This annotates that."  The importance may range
> from simply wanting to know, for the sake of completeness, the source
> of the added information to needing to make a value judgment predicated
> on the identity of that source.  The latter is particularly meaningful
> when the additional information may be subjective in nature.  Reviews
> and ratings fall squarely into the realm of subjectivity, where knowing
> *who* is asserting the value of the review (not to mention the identity
> of the reviewer) may directly inform how the Annotation is treated.
>
> Another way to define a BIBFRAME Annotation in this regard is by
> contrast to other BIBFRAME resources.  In the BIBFRAME universe, most
> of the "facts" about BIBFRAME Works, Instances, and Authorities are
> immutable, and they will likely be of interest to most users.  Creators,
> producers, authors, editors, places of publication, publication dates,
> publishers, manufacturers, titles, and much more, do not change per
> individual resource.  The novel /The Heart of Midlothian/ by Sir Walter
> Scott will always be titled "The Heart of Midlothian" and be by Sir
> Walter Scott.  Likewise, the instance published in 1878 in New York by
> G. Munro cannot shake those facts in just the same way the instance
> published in 1885 by J.W. Lovell and company (also in New York) cannot
> escape from those facts.  These are unquestionably objective "facts"
> about those resources.  However, reviews of the Work will be subjective
> and come from a myriad of sources, some of which may be more trusted
> than others or may be more suitable to some audiences than others.
>
> Using the BIBFRAME Annotation model for game ratings provides another
> example.  The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) assigns
> ratings to games based on content and age.  Australian Classification
> Board does this for the Australian market.  The Computer Entertainment
> Rating Organization (CERO) is the Japanese equivalent of ESRB.  The
> South Koreans, Germans, Europeans, and many more groups have their own
> rating systems.  In the United States, Common Sense Media is an
> alternative rating system that places special emphasis on age
> appropriateness.  Rating systems abound and, despite similarities, each
> will be distinctive to their markets and audiences.  Not only do the
> systems, by their nature, proffer subjective evaluations of media
> content, their value is only fully realized when we know *who* has
> assigned a particular game rating.  The BIBFRAME Annotation model
> provides a flexible way to enhance the description of Works and
> Instances while enabling a scenario that maintains a certain separation
> between objective "facts" and subjective ones.
>
> The valuable information added by the BIBFRAME Annotation is,
> objectively, no less (or more) important than the information
> associated directly with a BIBFRAME Work, Instance, or Authority.  It
> is just that the information conveyed by means of a BIBFRAME Annotation
> is in enriched by knowing *who* asserted the BIBFRAME Annotation.  As a
> practical matter, the *who* in this model can become a filter, allowing
> consumers (libraries certainly, but potentially also patrons) to select
> annotations based on who asserted the annotation.
>
>
> ---------
>
> I should add that we believe the BIBFRAME Annotation model to be a
> positive development that will allow for a fair amount of flexibility
> in the future for libraries, and other implementers, to augment their
> data how they deem most appropriate while leaving the information that
> remains constant between descriptions untouched.
>
> We still continue to explore the possibilities and potential of the
> BIBFRAME Annotations within the BIBFRAME model as a whole, so we
> appreciate the additional eyes and questions - it is about identifying
> and enabling our use cases.
>
> Warmly,
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 3:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
>
> I've had a terrible time trying to understand Open Annotation (why is
> this not just an RDF graph showing a relationship between things? Why
> does it get its own formal definition?), and now I'm looking at
> BIBFRAME annotation, pretty much guaranteeing even greater confusion on
> my part.
>
> BIBFRAME annotation is described as:
> The parties and objects involved in a BIBFRAME Annotation are:
> . The Target of the Annotation: A BIBFRAME Work, Instance, or Authority.
> The book, in part 1 of the illustration below.
> . The Annotation Body, which is the payload of the Annotation. The book
> review below.
> . An author, artist, reviewer, etc. who writes the Annotation Body.
> (This role is not represented formally in the Annotation model, but is
> mentioned here to clearly distinguish it from the Annotator.) The
> Reviewer below.
> . The Annotator, who asserts the Annotation. (The Annotator is not
> necessarily the same party as the author, etc. who wrote the
> Annotation.) The Annotator in part 2 of the illustration.
> . The Annotation itself , which points to the Body, Target, and
> Annotator. The Annotation, in part 2 of the illustration.  [1 - section
> 2.2]
> *****
> From this description I conclude that "Annotation" is a special
> instance of "node" -- a node with some semantics and a limited set of
> properties: links to a particular set of things. I'm still totally
> unclear why this is a special case in RDF, since things and links to
> things are inherent in the model.
> What BIBFRAME seems to be doing is using Annotation to mean "optional
> information." I conclude this from section 2.1 of the BIBFRAME
> annotation document [1 - section 2.1]:
> What is a BIBFRAME Annotation?
>
> For purposes of this model, a BIBFRAME Work, Instance, or Authority is
> an abstract resource. Different institutions may have different views
> of any given BIBFRAME Work, Instance, or Authority. For example, for a
> given BIBFRAME Work, InstitutionA and InstitutionB may each have a view
> of the Work,  bf:Work A and bf:Work B.
>
> Certain information is integral to a Work  - title and author, for
> example - and might be reasonably expected to be reflected in both
> views. Other information might be part of one view but not the other -
> information asserted (possibly by a third party) about the Work, which
> Institution A chooses to integrate into its view but Institution B
> chooses not to (or vice versa).
>
> A BIBFRAME Annotation is an assertion, by any party, about a BIBFRAME
> resource (Work, Instance, or Authority) that any institution holding a
> view of that resource may choose to integrate into its view, or choose
> not to.
> **********
> There seem to be two things going on here. One is that different users
> of BIBFRAME will make different choices about what is "integral" to
> Work, Instance and Authority.
> The other thing is that there are *optional* bits of information that
> can be encoded as Annotations, and these can be ignored by anyone not
> interested in making use of them. Unfortunately, defining some elements
> as "unessential" means that others must be defined as "essential."
> This means that one person's "integral bit" with be another person's
> Annotation. Thus having annotations doesn't mean simply that you can
> ignore all Annotations, nor does it mean that you do not need to make
> choices among the "integral bits" that come from other sources. In this
> sense, Annotation doesn't appear to me to solve the problem of
> differences in cataloging.
> I *could* understand (although not necessarily favor) a regime in which
> there is a defined core (oh, yes, that word again) and everything else
> is an annotation. That is, everything else is optional. But the
> definition of Annotation here does not seem to make this separation.
> Another possibility for Annotation would be to define it as being
> "third-party information" -- anything not provided by the cataloger and
> not provided for in the cataloging rules. I'm not saying this would be
> a good idea, but it would be a clear separation between Annotation and
> not-Annotation.
> If there isn't some clear separation, then I don't see a great
> advantage over letting metadata users select elements based on data
> elements and provenance.
> What have I missed?
> kc
> [1] http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

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

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