Separating holdings from annotations makes great sense to me. For example, the book sitting on my shelf is a bf:HeldItem. I can literally hold it in my hand.

Is the bf:HeldMaterial superclass intended to extend that set to cover non-physical materials, like an e-book? (I'm willing to believe those are within the bf:HeldItems set too, depending on how the term is defined). Or perhaps bf:HeldMaterial is intended in a traditional sense of "holdings" where we know a specific library has 3 copies in their inventory, but those copies haven't been clearly identified yet?


From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Denenberg, Ray
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BIBFRAME] BIBFRAME Annotations

Holdings:  We are seriously considering suggestions to abandon the attempt to model holdings as annotations, and to instead define bf:HeldMaterial as a subclass of bf:Resource (and bf:HeldItem a subclass of bf:HeldMaterial).    It is likely that this is the direction we will take.