Thanks Rob - this is helpful additional explanation


Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 7 May 2013, at 18:02, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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:

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 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?