Print

Print


Hi Owen,

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Owen Stephens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>
> The other examples of requirements from the Open Annotation work given by
> Rob were (numbering assigned by me here):
> 1) A highlighted span of text.
> 2) An annotation that refers to multiple segments of a resource,
> 3) Where there are, equivalently, multiple comments, such as a comment in
> English and the same comment in French
>
While not an expert, (1) and (2) seem clear to me. I'm less clear why (3)
> can't be handled as a language tag - although I would see an argument that
> a translation is in itself an annotation of a kind :)
>

The requirements here are twofold:

1. The same issue as avoiding literals as bodies.  A video could be
available in French and Spanish, however it wouldn't be possible to use the
literal language tag to convey that information. Thus we use dc:language,
as per: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed

2.  Having two bodies, with languages (regardless of via tags or
properties) doesn't convey sufficient information to the client to know
whether it should display one or both.  For example there could be two
completely different tags, one in english (beautiful) and one in french
(étoile [star]) both of which should be processed, as compared to a
translation where only one should.




> I don't see anything in Bibframe equivalent to (1) - all bibframe
> annotations are intended to point at a resource, not a fragment as far as I
> can see?
>

Yes, agreed. It's not about content but about resources in the abstract.
This makes things much easier!
One might consider other aspects of specific resources however -- the State
of the resource being annotated (for example the resource at a particular
time) might help to address some of the philosophical issues rasied about
change and facts.



> I don't see anything in Bibframe equivalent to (2) - all bibframe
> annotations are intended to point at a single resource, not multiple
> resources as far as I can see?
>

Depending on the modeling, there could be instances of multiple targets.
 For example if there are multiple identifiers in use for a single person
(VIAF, ORCID, etc) then the ContributorBio use case might have to point to
more than one target.


> I think (3) could apply to Bibframe - specifically in terms of bf:coverArt
>

Great example, again depending on the modeling if different printings get
different records, there may be sufficient granularity to annotate a single
cover image to a single resource.


Out of the annotation classes given in
> http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations/ the ones that strike me as
> falling into my interpretation of the criteria for 'annotations' are:
> bf:Review (provenance is key)
>

And in particular agency.  There are potentially many reviews from many
people, there's only one table of contents.



> Anyway - I guess my first question (I have a second for a separate email!)
> is - for each case where annotation is being used at the moment in
> BIBFRAME, does it really make sense, and if so, why?
>

Agreed!

Rob