 |
 |
Tom - our messages crossed, and hopefully this issue can be resolved simply by choosing better property names, for example "assertsCoverArt" rather than "hasCoverArt". --Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thomas Baker > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 8:07 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BF annotation and OA annotation > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:17:31PM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote: > > 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, > > I agree that in the absence of a fuller definition, the property name > alone -- "hasCoverArt" -- invites this interpretation, but a name is > just a name... > > If hasCoverArt were a sub-property of oa:hasBody, I would take it to > mean something like "has-body-that-happens-to-be-cover-art". If that > is indeed the intended meaning, then I do not see an obvious way to > convey that notion in a short property name, so if defined > appropriately, the property could be called "hasCoverArt" and formally > mean something like: "the annotation is associated with cover art of > which we can infer, since the property is a sub-property of oa:hasBody, > that it is the body of an annotation". > > So I agree that the name "hasCoverArt" is problematic because it > implies a model that is probably not intended. However, a property > with this name _could_ be formally defined in a way that is compatible > with what you and Rob suggest. > > Tom > > > ...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&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4206 > > > > [2] > > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&T=0&P=4656 > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi- > bin/wa?A2=ind1307&L=bibframe&D=0&T=0&P=420 > > 6 > > > > > >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 > > > > -- > Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>