The parties and objects involved in a BIBFRAME Annotation are:
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?
-- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet