On 5/8/13 3:18 PM, Ford, Kevin wrote:
> This does not preclude literal bodies.  It just means one might desire 
> a property to identify the agent responsible for the content of the 
> annotation.

Kevin, it does seem, though, that creator-ship of the body of the 
annotation would need to be associated directly with the body, and not 
the annotation. In other words, a publisher-provided author bio has a 
creator "the publisher" independently of whether the bio happens to be 
included as an annotation somewhere. Since you cannot further describe a 
literal, you appear to suggest that the creator of the body would become 
a property of the annotation. That seems misplaced to me.

However, doesn't this get us to a similar point that was reached in 
SKOS, where the majority case is a use of literals for labels, and there 
is an optional extension, SKOS-XL, for those instances where you need to 
say something more about the label? What I'm not at all sure of in the 
library use case is what the nature of our annotations will be -- in 
other words, will the vast majority of them have plain text bodies? You 
gave examples using the 856 field, which contains URLs that point to 
texts. If the URL is deemed to be the body, then those are in accord 
with the OA model. It does seem that anything that is carried today in 
an 856 has already solved the problem by minting a URI for the textual 
information. We still need examples of plain text annotations -- perhaps 
they are more in our future than in our past?


> Kevin
> *From:*Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Robert Sanderson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 08, 2013 5:18 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
> Sorry to bust the thread but ...
>     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.
> Thank you for providing another example for why literal bodies are a 
> terrible idea.
> Rob

Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet