One other difference that I see is the typing of the target. This may 
not be a vital difference since such typing is non-mandatory (for 
whatever mandatory means in the open world of linked data, but that's a 
whole other question I have about the OA model). OA uses dctypes, like 
"text," "image," "sound." Even for OA I question whether these are 
sufficiently granular to be useful ("image" and "sound" can be a whole 
plethora of actual digital file types).

As I read the BIBFRAME diagrams, the annotations are intended to 
annotate the major "things" of the BIBFRAME world. Will it be useful to 
type these as targets? And what would those types be? One possibility is 
that "Work" "Instance" and "Authority" are defined as target types for 
BIBFRAME use. Another, more general one is that the type is simply 
"graph", which is more analogous to the OA types.

The typing of hasBody might be the same as OA, but that's an hypothesis 
to be tested.

Then there is the question of whether the target would ever be more 
granular than W, I, A? For example, with cataloger notes, one might want 
to annotate a particular descriptive statement within, say, Work. 
Perhaps it is best to defer this question until more general ones are 


p.s. Except for Kevin I don't believe we have heard from anyone else 
involved in the development of the BIBFRAME annotation draft. I would be 
interesting to hear if any of this discussion is at all useful to their 

On 5/7/13 7:48 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
> My first question about Annotations in Bibframe was about whether the 
> existing proposed uses of Annotation were 'valid' - or could be said 
> to meet some criteria as to why they were 'annotations'.
> My second is about the differences between Bibframe annotations and 
> Open Annotation. As bf:Annotation is declared a subclass of 
> oa:Annotation it seems that there is a desire to share a common 
> conception of what an 'annotation' is.
> The immediately obvious major difference between the way Bibframe 
> Annotations and OA is that to specify the type of annotation Bibframe 
> uses subclasses while OA uses the concept of 'motiviation'. I have to 
> admit I struggle to see why Bibframe should do this differently to OA 
> given that there is so much to gain through doing it in the same way. 
> If there is anything to say about why bibframe proposes to do this via 
> subclassing it would be really good to know, as the OA documentation 
> makes it clear why they decided to go with the 'motivation' approach 
>, and 
> seems explicitly designed for scenarios such as the BIBFRAME one where 
> a community has some need to specify a certain type of annotation.
> In a recent email Rob Sanderson also highlighted another difference 
> which is allowing the use of literals to carry the body of an 
> annotation. Again the OA case for not allowing this is documented 
> and seems to 
> include some use cases that seem likely to impact on the library 
> domain - e.g. knowing directionality of text, knowing how text is 
> encoded. Again I think some explanation of why Bibframe feels it is 
> important to support the annotationBodyLiteral would be welcome.
> In Eric Miller's recent email he noted that "Ray Denenberg (the Editor 
> for this doc) [...] sees the compatibility and interoperability 
> differences to be minor to negligible,". If these two differences are 
> the major issues here, I tend to agree that there are not major 
> differences - which, to be honest, just makes me wonder all the more 
> why they are necessary :)
> Owen
>> On 6 May 2013, at 21:07, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>>>> <>
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet

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