Your speculation about a consortia sharing one Work resource gets to the heart of whether BIBFRAME is Linked Data or whether it's just records being represented in RDF. Have you considered if and how BIBFRAME should use owl:sameAs to bind resources together? If it's allowed, should the URIs be interpreted as the same Work (regardless of how or where it is described), or the same BIBFRAME data published in various places?


Sent from my iPad

On May 6, 2013, at 7:07 PM, "Ford, Kevin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Stuart,
>> Does that mean that if a spelling mistake occurs in the RDF for the
>> title of this novel, that it's incorrect in perpetuity?
> -- No.  Why would it?
>> Or that it has
>> to be corrected by hand in every library?
> -- Hopefully not.
> One of the questions we try to ask periodically is "how will we deal with X in the future?"  Naturally, it's too early to answer that question in regard to your spelling example, but I entertain thoughts wherein a lot more automation is employed to keep things up-to-date.  Could there not be a reference to the source of *your* Work's description that could be used to look upstream for changes?  Does BIBFRAME enable such a feature (if not, could it)?  What's needed to enable such as use case?  
> I also tend to entertain thoughts wherein there is reduced replication of static information (such as titles) that then might lessen the number of descriptions requiring modification when such a mistake is discovered.  In a consortium setting, for example, might there only be one Work resource?   In such a scenario, individual libraries will generate Instance resources, as needed and to be shared throughout the consortium.  Then individual libraries would attach Holding resources to the Instances.
> Cordially,
> Kevin
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of stuart yeates
>> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 4:55 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME annotation
>> A quick question:
>> "The novel /The Heart of Midlothian/ by Sir Walter Scott will always be
>> titled "The Heart of Midlothian" and be by Sir Walter Scott."
>> Does that mean that if a spelling mistake occurs in the RDF for the
>> title of this novel, that it's incorrect in perpetuity? Or that it has
>> to be corrected by hand in every library?
>> That seems unfortunate.
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> On 07/05/13 08:07, Ford, Kevin 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
>> Annotation?"
>>> 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 understand
>> ing 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.
>>> Warmly,
>>> Kevin
>>>> -----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 2.2]
>>>> *****
>>>> 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
>>>> 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 not-Annotation.
>>>> 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?
>>>> kc
>>>> [1]
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>> --
>> Stuart Yeates
>> Library Technology Services