Tom - our messages crossed, and hopefully this issue can be resolved simply
by choosing better property names, for example "assertsCoverArt" rather than
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:07 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BF annotation and OA annotation
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:17:31PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
> > On 7/30/13 12:15 PM, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> > >points out that an OA Annotation may have multiple bodies. So if we
> > >were to declare for example that the two properties, bf:hasCoverArt
> > >and bf:hasCoverartThumb, were both subproperties of oa:hasBody,
> > >a cover art Annotation which incudes both (i.e. a link to cover art
> > >as well as to a thumbnail) could be viewed from an OA perspective as
> > >an Annotation with two bodies.
> > Thanks, Ray, but I think this misses the point of Rob Sanderson's
> > message, which I then tried to illustrate. Rob says:
> > * The different semantics -- hasCoverArt conveys a very different
> > relationship to hasBody. The /annotation/ does not have the image as
> > its cover art, the target of the annotation is the resource that it
> > the cover art for.
> > I illustrated it this way:
> > A has target B
> > A has cover art C
> > If this means that B is the target of A, then it also means that C is
> > the cover art of A.
> > "hasCoverArt" could not be a sub-property of oa:hasBody, since "has
> > body" is saying that the annotation is the subject of the statement,
> > and the body is its object. Unless Rob and I are mistaken in our
> > interpretation,
> I agree that in the absence of a fuller definition, the property name
> alone -- "hasCoverArt" -- invites this interpretation, but a name is
> just a name...
> If hasCoverArt were a sub-property of oa:hasBody, I would take it to
> mean something like "has-body-that-happens-to-be-cover-art". If that
> is indeed the intended meaning, then I do not see an obvious way to
> convey that notion in a short property name, so if defined
> appropriately, the property could be called "hasCoverArt" and formally
> mean something like: "the annotation is associated with cover art of
> which we can infer, since the property is a sub-property of oa:hasBody,
> that it is the body of an annotation".
> So I agree that the name "hasCoverArt" is problematic because it
> implies a model that is probably not intended. However, a property
> with this name _could_ be formally defined in a way that is compatible
> with what you and Rob suggest.
> > ...this is a modeling error, unrelated to any
> > conflicts between OA and BF. The body could have a type, but the type
> > is not logically the relationship to the annotation.
> > If Body1 is an image of a cover, then you can see the difference
> > Anno1 -> hasBody -> Body1 -> is type of:cover art
> > Anno1 -> hasCoverArt -> Body1
> > The body can BE an instance of cover art, but I don't think that the
> > annotation can have cover art. The annotation is a relationship
> > between a body and a target.
> > In that email  I proposed a way that BIBFRAME could type its
> > annotation bodies, which I believe would give you the detailed body
> > type information you desire. You then can still have multiple bodies
> > and be compatible with OA, as Tom pointed out.
> > kc
> > 
> > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4206
> > 
> > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4656
> > 
> > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-
> > 6
> > >
> > >I knew that an OA Annotation could have multiple bodies but I hadn't
> > >thought through the implications of that quite in these terms. Tom's
> > >argument is convincing enough for me. So we will define all BIBFRAME
> > >Annotation-class-specific properties to be
> > >subproperties of oa:hasBody. And, we will define bf:annotates to
> > >be a subproperty of oa:hasTarget.
> > >
> > >I appreciate the comments on and discussion of BIBFRAME Annotations
> > >and we hope to have draft 2 of the model ready to review soon.
> > >
> > >Ray
> > >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>