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  July 2013

BIBFRAME July 2013

Subject:

Re: BF annotation and OA annotation

From:

Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:57:58 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (74 lines)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:20:46PM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote:
> There will be no claim of conformance to or compatibility with OAM. 
> 
> So in particular:
> > In section 6 of the BF annotation document [1] there is only one entry
> > under "Subproperty of":
> 
> >      bf:annotates ->  subPropertyOf -> oa:hasTarget
> 
> This no longer applies.

The loss of this very sensible mapping would be a pity if the basic models --
at the level of what OA calls the Open Annotation Core -- really were
compatible which, as far as I can see, they really are.

> I hope to have more to say on all of this very soon.  I will say this
> though: Much of the changes in draft 2 respond directly to the criticisms of
> and confusion over controversial areas of draft 1.  In particular, there are
> a few areas where we feel that BIBFRAME Annotations are fundamentally
> different from web annotations large, and there was strong criticism from
> OAM to the effect of "if you are not going to conform to our model, don't
> pretend that you do". So we won't. 

When Robert said this [1], I understood him to mean the full Open Annotation
Data Model [2], which includes "rules intended to enhance interoperability
between communities" -- _not_ the ontology that defines the properties and
classes used for the data model [3,4,5].  That ontology defines oa:hasTarget
with exactly five triples:

    oa:hasTarget rdf:type           owl:ObjectProperty
    oa:hasTarget rdfs:label         "hasTarget"@en
    oa:hasTarget rdfs:isDefinedBy   oa:
    oa:hasTarget rdfs:domain        oa:Annotation
    oa:hasTarget rdfs:comment       "The relationship between oa:Annotation and
        target. The target resource is what the oa:hasBody is somewhat "about".
        The target may be of any media type, and contain any type of content.
        The target SHOULD be identified by HTTP URIs unless they are embedded
        within the Annotation.  Embedded targets SHOULD be instances of
        cnt:ContentAsText and embed their content with cnt:chars. They SHOULD
        declare their media type with dc:format, and MAY indicate their
        language using dc:language and a RFC-3066 language tag.  There is no OA
        class provided for "Target" as a target might be a body in a different
        annotation. However, there SHOULD be 1 or more content-based classes
        associated with the target resources of an Annotation, and the dctypes:
        vocabulary is recommended for this purpose, for instance dctypes:Text
        to declare textual content." .

The OA documentation could, in my opinion, more clearly draw attention to the
distinction between the OA Data Model and the OA ontology, and it is unusual
for an ontology to include such usage recommendations in an rdfs:comment (see
above), but it is very significant that none of the recommendations say "MUST".

As far as I can tell, the OA and BF annotation approaches apply the same core
model, only they were designed for somewhat different typical use cases so are
associated with different usage guidelines.  Unless the meaning of bf:annotates
were changed in ways that REALLY made it incompatible with oa:hasTarget as
defined above, it would be very helpful to keep the mapping.  In fact, other
mappings between the vocabularies might helpfully be specified as well.

Doing so would _not_ imply that BF annotations conform with the particular
"rules intended to enhance interoperability between communities" specified in
the OA Data Model.

Tom

[1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305&L=bibframe&T=0&P=11875
[2] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/index.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#
[4] http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.rdf
[5] http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.ttl

-- 
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>

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