But Karen, hasCoverArt does not have the semantics "has cover art".
Which, I realize, suggests that we could come up with a better name for
the property.
But no,
<anno> hasCoverArt <coverArt>
does not mean that <coverArt> is cover art for <anno>, it means that
<coverArt> is cover art for the target of <anno>. If the property name
instead were 'assertsCoverArt', thus
<anno> assertsCoverArt <coverArt>
Would that work better?
--Ray
From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BF annotation and OA annotation
On 7/30/13 12:15 PM, Ray Denenberg wrote:
points out that an OA Annotation may have multiple bodies. So if we were to
declare for example that the two properties, bf:hasCoverArt and
bf:hasCoverartThumb, were both subproperties of oa:hasBody, then a cover
art Annotation which incudes both (i.e. a link to cover art as well as to a
thumbnail) could be viewed from an OA perspective as an Annotation with two
bodies.
Thanks, Ray, but I think this misses the point of Rob Sanderson's
message[1], which I then tried to illustrate.[2] Rob says:
* The different semantics -- hasCoverArt conveys a very different
relationship to hasBody. The /annotation/ does not have the image as its
cover art, the target of the annotation is the resource that it is the
cover art for.
I illustrated it this way:
A has target B
A has cover art C
If this means that B is the target of A, then it also means that C is
the cover art of A.
"hasCoverArt" could not be a sub-property of oa:hasBody, since "has body"
is saying that the annotation is the subject of the statement, and the body
is its object. Unless Rob and I are mistaken in our interpretation, this is
a modeling error, unrelated to any conflicts between OA and BF. The body
could have a type, but the type is not logically the relationship to the
annotation.
If Body1 is an image of a cover, then you can see the difference between:
Anno1 -> hasBody -> Body1 -> is type of:cover art
Anno1 -> hasCoverArt -> Body1
The body can BE an instance of cover art, but I don't think that the
annotation can have cover art. The annotation is a relationship between a
body and a target.
In that email [2] I proposed a way that BIBFRAME could type its annotation
bodies, which I believe would give you the detailed body type information
you desire. You then can still have multiple bodies and be compatible with
OA, as Tom pointed out.
kc
[1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307
<http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4206>
&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4206
[2] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307
<http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4656>
&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4656
[1] http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307
<http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&D=0&T=0&P=4206>
&L=bibframe&D=0&T=0&P=4206
I knew that an OA Annotation could have multiple bodies but I hadn't thought
through the implications of that quite in these terms. Tom's argument is
convincing enough for me. So we will define all BIBFRAME
Annotation-class-specific properties to be subproperties of oa:hasBody.
And, we will define bf:annotates to be a subproperty of oa:hasTarget.
I appreciate the comments on and discussion of BIBFRAME Annotations and we
hope to have draft 2 of the model ready to review soon.
Ray
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
