Print

Print



Dear Karen, Jeff and all,

Firstly, to describe why Open Annotation (not necessarily Bibframe's annotations) are not just reinventing RDF named graphs or RDF reification, there are many situations where the information is not expressible as a single, reified triple.

Consider the following structural use cases which we consider as important for annotation:

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

Then there are many additional features that require additional information, including describing segments of resources that cannot be described using URI fragments, such as non rectangular spatial areas, arbitrary text spans or segments of representations that do not have a fragment definition for the media type.  Also, styling of the annotation, the state of the resource in order to derive the correct representation, and provenance information for the annotation itself.

Unless you're claiming that annotation does not require a model or any new vocabulary/ontology? At the very least there needs to be a notion of provenance of the annotation graph, and the resources involved in it. Perhaps I'm missing the point? Have you looked at the Open Annotation work, or just the Bibframe document? 
The specification: http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/ 
And our recent (yesterday!) paper at Web Science 2013: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.6709


And secondly to enumerate the areas of incompatiblity:

* bf:annotationBodyLiteral

This pattern is not available in the Open Annotation model, after much discussion.  
The wiki discussion page: http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Textual_Bodies
The distilled rationale in the specification: http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#BodyEmbed

Note that in the bibframe document, the solution we adopt is also used, being the Content in RDF specification.
Also note that this spec is less mature than the Open Annotation spec, yet the Annotation model is reproduced and the content in RDF model is reused.

* Motivation vs SubClassing

The Open Annotation model recommends motivations as a means of expressing the rationale behind the creation of the Annotation, yet the Bibframe model uses subclasses of Annotation.
The motivation system is extensible and able to be integrated post-factum across communities as it is based on the SKOS model, rather than simple subclassing.

See:
http://openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Motivations
http://openannotation.org/spec/core/appendices.html#ExtendingMotivations

* Inline Annotations

These annotations do not have an explicit target, which is required in Open Annotation.  It could be argued that bf:annotation is the inverse property of oa:hasTarget, but that is not clear from the current document.
Also, in RDF there is no notion of "embedded" or "records", there is a single global graph that uses the open world assumption.  This "inline" annotation is typical closed world thinking, where a "record" is something that exists.  So to say "the Target is assumed to be the resource in which it is embedded" is not meaningful.

* The Reinvention of the Model

There's no reason to reinvent all of the terms, classes, properties and relationships. The redundancy is astounding, and unnecessary. Especially, as above, given the re-use of DC Terms and Content in RDF.  One would expect, given the negative view from the "Reuse of Ontologies" thread on this mailing list, that these would also be recreated in the bf ontology.


Hope that helps,

Rob, Paolo and Herbert



On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
As Karen Coyle suggested (if I skimmed her recent comments correctly), what if you guys can't agree because you're both merely reinventing RDF graphs?

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On May 3, 2013, at 4:16 PM, "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Dear Sally, Ray and all,

As co-chairs and co-editors of the W3C Open Annotation Community Group, Paolo, Herbert and I would again like to invite members of the BIBFRAME group to continue the discussion of interoperable annotation on the mailing list for the W3C Community Group. There is neither a cost nor membership requirement to joining.

We feel it is fair to say that the Open Annotation effort has gained significant momentum, being the 6th largest community group with many active and ongoing discussions. However there is always room for improvement, and we still believe that both BIBFRAME and Open Annotation would benefit from an open discussion of the issues that resulted in the divergence which is clear in the annotation document.

It is regrettable that the BIBFRAME annotation model is neither compatible nor interoperable with the Open Annotation Data Model, especially given the significant overlap between the target communities of Open Annotation and BIBFRAME.  We are disappointed that prior efforts to engage with the BIBFRAME community regarding annotation did not yield more constructive results to this stage. We hope that our invitation to discuss issues on the W3C Community Group will be met positively as we feel we owe it to our communities to work towards convergence.

Respectfully,

Robert Sanderson, Paolo Ciccarese, and Herbert Van de Sompel



On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:08 AM, McCallum, Sally <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for your comments and ideas over the last few months.  The small team that we have called the Early Experimenters has prepared some discussion papers on difficult topics related to the BIBFRAME model and the developing draft vocabulary.  Now we want to put these papers on bibframe.org and begin discussion on this listserv.   By preparing background and recommendation papers we hope to help focus the discussion on the issues.
>
>  
>
> The issues are some of the hard ones that all of us who deal with bibliographic data run into  -- always.   We are starting with the BIBFRAME Annotations paper, which you can find here:
>
>                 http://bibframe.org/documentation/annotations
>
> Then we hope to get discussion papers on BIBFRAME Authorities, Relationships, Schema.org, and Resource types out soon, followed by Holdings, Aggregates, and other issues.   These were prepared by various subgroups of the Experimenter team.  We do not want to send everything at once as we would like you to have focus rather than overload.
>
>  
>
> We ask that when discussing the topics, you name your listserv comment with the topic short title (indicated on the topic paper) with an extra title to bind threads, e.g., "annotations--main point".
>
>  
>
> We at LC continue to work on the conversion of MARC data, which, along with RDA, is the current feeder of the current vocabulary available at http://bibframe.org/.  In the last couple of months, we have made the following enhancements to the BIBFRAME website:
>
>  
>
> -  Regularly updated to the vocabulary: http://bibframe.org/vocab/
>
> -  Added BIBFRAME example snippets in vocabulary section: e.g. http://bibframe.org/vocab/class-lcc
>
> -  Improved the MARC-to-BIBFRAME code: http://bibframe.org/tools/
>
> -  Added a set of Frequently Asked Questions: http://bibframe.org/faq/
>
>  
>
> We have made every effort to update the MARC-to-BIBFRAME transformation code after modifying the vocabulary, and we plan to change and enhance the code based on feedback from the papers.  You can begin using the transformation code today as a reference and starting point for your own explorations.  See the contribute page to learn more: http://bibframe.org/contribute/.
>
>  
>
> Please read the papers that we are be putting up on bibframe.org and participate in the discussion -- we are all in this together!
>
>  
>
> Sally
>
>  
>
> **************************
>
> Sally H. McCallum
>
> Chief, Network Development and Standards Office
>
> Library of Congress,  101 Independence Ave., SE
>
> Washington, DC 20540  USA
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Tel. 1-202-707-5119 -- Fax 1-202-707-0115
>
> **************************
>
>