Print

Print


New versions, well perhaps.
It would be nice if they built "on" starting from known work instead of starting from scratch.

Thanks,
Shlomo

Sent from my iPad

On May 9, 2013, at 23:46, "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:


And bodyCreated, bodyLicense, bodyDescription, bodyPublished, bodyDateAccepted, bodyRequires, bodyHasPart, bodyAudience, bodyAvailable, bodyConformsTo, bodyContributor, bodyRights, bodyRightsHolder, bodyProvenance, bodyRelation, bodyReplaces,  ... and then you're about half way done with the Dublin Core terms vocabulary.

I guess that would be consistent with the bibframe mentality of creating new versions of everything, though ;)

Rob



On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Would it help to define an annotation property "bodyCreator".

  So if the publisher created the publisher description and the library of congress asserted the annotation:

http://annotation

a

bf:PublisherDescription ;

                                             ..



bf:annotates

http://instance ;



bf:annotationAssertedBy

(Library of Congress)



bf:BodyCreator

(publisher)


Or if a third party created the publisher description:

http://annotation

a

bf:PublisherDescription ;

                                             ..



bf:annotates

http://instance ;



bf:annotationAssertedBy

(Library of Congress)



bf:BodyCreator

(third party)


Ray

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Owen Stephens
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 1:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation

On 9 May 2013, at 18:05, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:


True, but the 520 is also the other source of BIBFRAME Annotation types (Review, Abstract, ContentAdvice).  Also, the principle Stephen raised ([publisher] bias) still holds, especially with the the Publisher description and (potentially) Contributor Bio (bias is really not a factor with Sample Text and Table of Contents).


Acknowledged - thanks both.

I think the point here about 'bias' is back to the issue of the 'who' being important. However, I'm back to my confusion on this - if the annotation approach doesn't inherently allow you to say 'this statement is made by the publisher, not the library', then why use an annotation? It may as well be just another bibframe property? (at least, knowing that a library stated this is a publisher description is no more important to me than knowing that the library stated this is the title from the title page - which I think is one of the points made by Tom Meehan)

Owen