Print

Print


The question was asked why has the draft Annotation model defined the property bf:annotationBodyLiteral (in addition to bf:annotationBody). Well the easy answer is:

 

Because this …..

 

http://annotation.com/xyz

a

bf:ContributorBio ;

 

bf:annotationBodyLiteral

"Ronald M. Schneider is professor of political

science at QueensCollege, City

University of New York" ;

 

bf:annotationAssertedBy

( some authority)  .

 

is simpler than this ……

 

http://annotation.com/xyz

a

bf:ContributorBio ;

 

bf:annotationBody

genid:A21760 ;

 

bf:annotationAssertedBy

( some authority)  .

genid:A21760

a

cnt:ContentAsText ;

 

cnt:chars

"Ronald M. Schneider is professor of political

science at QueensCollege, City

University of New York" ;

 

dc:format 

 

"text/plain" .

 

This is a work in progress and it remains a point of discussion whether bf:annotationBodyLiteral will still be defined when we get to the second draft. If the consensus (of this community, as represented by this listserv) is that the simplicity gained is not worth the problems it causes, it will be dropped.

 

But first a few discussion points about this.

 

In discussion we've had here (at LC), we don't think this violates OA. If BIBFRAME did not define bf:annotationBody then that would violate  OA, but allowing the additional option of providing the body as a literal, when the annotator feels it is appropriate to do so, seems a reasonable feature, at least worth discussion. 

 

We do understand that this could create a potential incompatibility, that tools based on OA would not process BIBFRAME Annotations. That's a fair point.  On the other hand, some of us think that this feature is important because of the potential simplicity it can provide, and if enough of us feel that way then maybe it is worthwhile to try to convince OA to allow this feature.

 

Rob offered this example for why literal bodies should not be allowed:

 

Rob:  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.

 

Well I think the answer to that is simple: if you want to convey that the video is available in French and Spanish, don't use a literal.   You'd use bf:hasBoby, not bf:hasBodyLiteral. Defining and allowing the property bf:hasBodyLiteral doesn't mean it is mandatory.

 

Rob also offered another reason (this was in private discussion, but I'm sure Rob won't object):  

 

Rob: The consumer of the Annotation will not know the content type

 

My answer to that is, if it is anything other than plain text, it needs to be represented as a resource; anytime the body is a literal it is assumed to be plain text.

 

Rob countered (paraphrasing):

 

If a literal body is allowed, you can be absolutely certain that people will stick html and other content types in there and there will be no way for the client to know the type.

 

Perhaps that's true, but if the rule is that you don't use a literal unless its plain text, then if someone willfully violates that rule, what, are we supposed to protect people from themselves?

 

Another argument:

 

If the body is a literal, it isn't searchable.  

 

That's a fair point. I would simply respond, if you want the body to be searchable, don't represent it as a literal.

 

 

Anyway, I think it is worth discussion, and if the consensus is that  bf:annotationBodyLiteral should be dropped, it will be dropped.

 

 

Ray