Print

Print


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