>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owen Stephens
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 10:29 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
>> Thanks Kevin for this attempt - I, at least, found it helpful in terms
>> of thinking about how BIBFRAME uses 'annotations'.
>> There is clearly a lot of 'grey area' in terms of what might be
>> regarded as an annotation and what not. While acknowledging the
>> criticism others have made that dealing in 'facts' is problematic, I
>> think I understand the idea that there are things that we might easily
>> get consensus on and those that we might not, or have valid multiple
>> views on - but this is a spectrum.
>> In this context it makes sense that Annotations are used when it is
>> important to the provenance (especially the 'who') of a statement. The
>> issue of Provenance is mentioned by Rob Sanderson as part of the
>> rationale for developing additional vocabulary/ontology for the Open
>> Annotation work in one of his recent emails. The other work on
>> Provenance for triples has also been mentioned, but clearly the current
>> situation is that OA creates a clear mechanism for this)
>> 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. There is an obvious target segment of a
>> resource (the object), but there is no body/comment (the subject). As
>> a triple must have a subject, this could not be expressed. A second
>> example of this would be a bookmark where the body is also implicit.
>> 2) An annotation that refers to multiple segments of a resource,
>> multiple resources or multiple segments of multiple resources. In this
>> case there would be multiple objects, which is also not possible to be
>> expressed in RDF.
>> 3) Where there are, equivalently, multiple comments, such as a comment
>> in English and the same comment in French and the user agent should
>> determine which is more appropriate to show to the user.
>> 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 :)
>> 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?
>> 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?
>> I think (3) could apply to Bibframe - specifically in terms of
>> Having thought this through for me the first question is whether all
>> Bibframe 'annotations' as currently proposed should be expressed as
>> annotations. I think I'm willing to accept that if they fulfil any of
>> the criteria above (provenance is key, or 1,2,3 listed) then there is a
>> justification to use an 'annotation' approach.
>> 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'
>> bf:Review (provenance is key)
>> bf:CoverArt (assuming this is an image of the cover - equivalence
>> between different images of the cover but all ultimately making the
>> same assertion of 'it looks like this')
>> The others seem less clear to me:
>> bf:ContributorBio - maybe if provenance is key, although it may depend
>> on the type of biographical information being asserted - feels like it
>> needs breaking down further bf:TableofContents - is this debated? Or
>> likely to need multiple equivalent assertions? Feels like this is just
>> a straightforward property of the work bf:SampleText - while I can see
>> that there could be many examples of 'sampletext' for a single item, it
>> doesn't seem likely we care 'who' made the claim it was sample text?
>> Feels like a different kind of relationship to an annotation
>> bf:PublisherDescription - this feels wrong in that why not have
>> bf:Description, with the annotation asserting it was created by the
>> 'publisher'? A 'description' seems squarely in 'annotation' territory,
>> while a specific description assigned to a specific body feels like it
>> could be handled without resorting to annotation
>> 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?
>> Owen Stephens
>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>> On 6 May 2013, at 21:07, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> 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
>> 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 understanding 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.
>> -----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
>> 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 BIBFRAME
>> 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
>> 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?
>>  http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet