Print

Print


As I said the last time.
I agree 100% with Jeff.

Thanks,
Shlomo Sanders
CTO
Ex Libris

Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure<http://www.exlibrispublications.com/primo/>

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 15:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Documents and improvements

I think that SKOS is an interesting illustration. They could have used reification or named graphs or invented some flavor of Annotation to specify their structures, but they chose to do it with straight RDF instead. Rather than assume RDF isn't capable of this or deciding its not ideal in that form, they just bit the bullet and did the modeling needed to make it happen. I like that about SKOS.

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On May 5, 2013, at 6:12 AM, "Shlomo Sanders" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I agree with Jeff 100%.
Instead of consolidating more and more stuff are defined.
All for good reasons, but the bottom line will be longer for vendors to support, more bugsā€¦..

Thanks,
Shlomo

Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure<http://www.exlibrispublications.com/primo/>

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:51
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Documents and improvements


Shlomo,

You weren't satisfied with the explanation given as to why this is not the case?

Rob

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Shlomo Sanders <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hear, hear

Thanks,
Shlomo

Experience the all-new, singing and dancing interactive Primo brochure<http://www.exlibrispublications.com/primo/>

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 06:27
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Documents and improvements

As Karen Coyle suggested (if I skimmed her recent comments correctly), what if you guys can't agree because you're both merely reinventing RDF graphs?

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On May 3, 2013, at 4:16 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

Dear Sally, Ray and all,

As co-chairs and co-editors of the W3C Open Annotation Community Group, Paolo, Herbert and I would again like to invite members of the BIBFRAME group to continue the discussion of interoperable annotation on the mailing list for the W3C Community Group. There is neither a cost nor membership requirement to joining.

We feel it is fair to say that the Open Annotation effort has gained significant momentum, being the 6th largest community group with many active and ongoing discussions. However there is always room for improvement, and we still believe that both BIBFRAME and Open Annotation would benefit from an open discussion of the issues that resulted in the divergence which is clear in the annotation document.

It is regrettable that the BIBFRAME annotation model is neither compatible nor interoperable with the Open Annotation Data Model, especially given the significant overlap between the target communities of Open Annotation and BIBFRAME.  We are disappointed that prior efforts to engage with the BIBFRAME community regarding annotation did not yield more constructive results to this stage. We hope that our invitation to discuss issues on the W3C Community Group will be met positively as we feel we owe it to our communities to work towards convergence.

Respectfully,

Robert Sanderson, Paolo Ciccarese, and Herbert Van de Sompel



On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:08 AM, McCallum, Sally <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for your comments and ideas over the last few months.  The small team that we have called the Early Experimenters has prepared some discussion papers on difficult topics related to the BIBFRAME model and the developing draft vocabulary.  Now we want to put these papers on bibframe.org<http://bibframe.org> and begin discussion on this listserv.   By preparing background and recommendation papers we hope to help focus the discussion on the issues.
>
>
>
> The issues are some of the hard ones that all of us who deal with bibliographic data run into  -- always.   We are starting with the BIBFRAME Annotations paper, which you can find here:
>
>                 http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations
>
> Then we hope to get discussion papers on BIBFRAME Authorities, Relationships, Schema.org<http://Schema.org>, and Resource types out soon, followed by Holdings, Aggregates, and other issues.   These were prepared by various subgroups of the Experimenter team.  We do not want to send everything at once as we would like you to have focus rather than overload.
>
>
>
> We ask that when discussing the topics, you name your listserv comment with the topic short title (indicated on the topic paper) with an extra title to bind threads, e.g., "annotations--main point".
>
>
>
> We at LC continue to work on the conversion of MARC data, which, along with RDA, is the current feeder of the current vocabulary available at http://bibframe.org/.  In the last couple of months, we have made the following enhancements to the BIBFRAME website:
>
>
>
> -  Regularly updated to the vocabulary: http://bibframe.org/vocab/
>
> -  Added BIBFRAME example snippets in vocabulary section: e.g. http://bibframe.org/vocab/class-lcc
>
> -  Improved the MARC-to-BIBFRAME code: http://bibframe.org/tools/
>
> -  Added a set of Frequently Asked Questions: http://bibframe.org/faq/
>
>
>
> We have made every effort to update the MARC-to-BIBFRAME transformation code after modifying the vocabulary, and we plan to change and enhance the code based on feedback from the papers.  You can begin using the transformation code today as a reference and starting point for your own explorations.  See the contribute page to learn more: http://bibframe.org/contribute/.
>
>
>
> Please read the papers that we are be putting up on bibframe.org<http://bibframe.org> and participate in the discussion -- we are all in this together!
>
>
>
> Sally
>
>
>
> **************************
>
> Sally H. McCallum
>
> Chief, Network Development and Standards Office
>
> Library of Congress,  101 Independence Ave., SE
>
> Washington, DC 20540  USA
>
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Tel. 1-202-707-5119<tel:1-202-707-5119> -- Fax 1-202-707-0115<tel:1-202-707-0115>
>
> **************************
>
>