Ray, thanks,

This is very pertinent to what I'm working on. Tom Baker and I are holding a session at the Dublin Core meeting in September on Application Profiles (aka Community Profiles).[1] We will be using OA/BF to discuss the difference between conformance to an ontology, and conformance to an application model.

The BIBFRAME annotation properties, as described in the current document, are in fact conformant with the OA RDF ontology.[2] Even "annotationBodyLiteral." There is no technical (e.g. RDF) reason why BIBFRAME Annotation classes and properties could not be "subbed" to properties in the OA ontology. To remove that connection means to remove the possibility of OA and BF annotations being able to interoperate in the same Web space. It would really be a shame to lose this capability by erecting a wall between them.

In fact, OA and BF core models are similar enough that it makes sense to envision linking between them.


I see one of the key goals of linked data to allow data to combine where it has commonality (at the level of triples or graphs), even though there isn't a 100% overlap in the overall community models.

The concepts we will be discussing in September are general enough that they should not depend on revisions to the BIBFRAME Annotations document. However, if a new version is issued before the meeting I will attempt to incorporate any relevant changes.



On 7/22/13 2:20 PM, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> From: Karen Coyle


Hi Karen -  Several of us have been working on Draft 2 of the BIBFRAME Annotation Model (Draft 2 will be still a work in progress) and we hope to have it available for review in a few weeks. There are still some areas of debate, within the group working on this, but given the question you've asked I do want to give you a heads-up:


There will be no claim of conformance to or compatibility with OAM.


So in particular:


> In section 6 of the BF annotation document [1] there is only one entry

> under "Subproperty of":


>      bf:annotates ->  subPropertyOf -> oa:hasTarget


This no longer applies.


I hope to have more to say on all of this very soon.  I will say this though: Much of the changes in draft 2 respond directly to the criticisms of and confusion over controversial areas of draft 1.  In particular, there are a few areas where we feel that BIBFRAME Annotations are fundamentally different from web annotations large, and there was strong criticism from OAM to the effect of "if you are not going to conform to our model, don't pretend that you do". So we won't.





Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet