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
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.
On 8/1/13 7:26 AM, Ray Denenberg wrote:
one cannot create an annotation unless
there is a pre-defined property for the annotation type.
Annotation type and property can be in a different
namespace. Consider the following example.
It is a
BIBFRAME Annotation, of class em:Watcher. The property
em:pingback also is not in the bf namespace.
Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BF annotation and OA
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
I see no advantages of this approach, but I assume that you
do. Perhaps you can say what those are?
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net