Print

Print


Ray, it is good news that BF will accept different namespaces. I hope that is extended to other areas of the model where it can be of use.

There is still the conscious decision to not be compatible with OA, which is disappointing, but then again OA is new and may not become the standard for annotations. Personally, I see no downside to following the model:

A -> hasBody -> B -> hasType -> X

but instead doing:

A -> X -> B

But I see that the horse is dead.

kc

On 8/1/13 7:26 AM, Ray Denenberg wrote:

Karen said: 

 

one cannot create an annotation unless there is a pre-defined property for the annotation type.

But the Annotation type and property  can be in a different namespace.  Consider the following example.  

 

<http://library.local.org/annotationXYZ>

    a bf:Annotation;

    a em:Watcher;

    em:pingback <library.local.org/examples/king/test001/w1>;

    bf:annotationAssertedBy <library.local.org/em>;

 

It is a BIBFRAME Annotation, of class em:Watcher.  The property em:pingback also is not in the bf namespace.

 

Ray

 

 

From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BF annotation and OA annotation

 

Ray, you can define it as "asserts Cover Art" or "has a body that is cover art" but it cannot be a subproperty of oa:hasBody because the semantics are considerably different. In fact, this then changes the very basis of the model, and Rob's objections to any use of OA starts looking like the way to go. It also means that one cannot create an annotation unless there is a pre-defined property for the annotation type.

I see no advantages of this approach, but I assume that you do. Perhaps you can say what those are?

kc


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