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?





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

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

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.






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.



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