Dear Stuart,

> Does that mean that if a spelling mistake occurs in the RDF for the
> title of this novel, that it's incorrect in perpetuity?
-- No.  Why would it?

> Or that it has
> to be corrected by hand in every library?
-- Hopefully not.

One of the questions we try to ask periodically is "how will we deal with X in the future?"  Naturally, it's too early to answer that question in regard to your spelling example, but I entertain thoughts wherein a lot more automation is employed to keep things up-to-date.  Could there not be a reference to the source of *your* Work's description that could be used to look upstream for changes?  Does BIBFRAME enable such a feature (if not, could it)?  What's needed to enable such as use case?  

I also tend to entertain thoughts wherein there is reduced replication of static information (such as titles) that then might lessen the number of descriptions requiring modification when such a mistake is discovered.  In a consortium setting, for example, might there only be one Work resource?   In such a scenario, individual libraries will generate Instance resources, as needed and to be shared throughout the consortium.  Then individual libraries would attach Holding resources to the Instances.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of stuart yeates
> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 4:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
> A quick question:
> "The novel /The Heart of Midlothian/ by Sir Walter Scott will always be
> titled "The Heart of Midlothian" and be by Sir Walter Scott."
> Does that mean that if a spelling mistake occurs in the RDF for the
> title of this novel, that it's incorrect in perpetuity? Or that it has
> to be corrected by hand in every library?
> That seems unfortunate.
> cheers
> stuart
> On 07/05/13 08:07, Ford, Kevin 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 understand
> ing 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]
> >> 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
> >> 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]
> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >> skype: kcoylenet
> >
> --
> Stuart Yeates
> Library Technology Services