Print

Print


I am also deeply puzzled.

What I understand from Ray's message about bf:circulationStatus is "if you
see a RDF statement where a holding annotation has a property of a
bf:circulationStatus, it is *not* the holding annotation's circulation
state, but the circulation state of an *item* that is being described by
the annotation".

What kind of riddle is this? The point is that there is no class bf:Item,
it is missing. I still hope that clarifications will be offered.

But fortunately, I have designed my own item and library service ontology
where I don't have to solve riddles like this, because there is an "Item"
class.

Best,

Jörg


On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Steven Folsom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  I’m officially confused?
>
>  I was about to write Simon back to suggest that maybe the choice to use
> the word reflecting in the bf:Instance definition was to acknowledge that
> the rdf resource isn’t *really* a material thing; I think we can all
> agree that no one is ever going to hold a triple in their hand. (In the
> same way FOAF defines a person, "The Person
> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person> class * represents* people.
> Something is a Person <http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person> if it is
> a person.” http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person)
>
>  But… Ray’s response suggests a further level of abstraction, that
> BIBFRAME resources are to be considered descriptions, not in the we’re
> using RDF resources to model RWO’s and concepts, but rather bf:Works are
> descriptive ‘records’.
>
>  Re: bf:circulationStatus, Where is the ‘item' in the ontology if
> bf:Instance is either a *description* of the item and not the item itself
> (following Ray’s explanation for bf:Works), or as Simon suggests a FRBR
> manifestation?
>
>  Re:TOC’s, This is a minor point compared to above, but wouldn’t TOC's be
> related to bf:Instances? Purely conceptual works do not inherently have
> pagination.
>
>  Clarity would genuinely be appreciated,
> Steven
>
>   From: <Denenberg>, Ray <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 3:05 PM
> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Annotations in BibFrame
>
>   Apologies for my silence; we have indeed been thinking deeply about
> BIBFRAME annotations.
>
>
>
> Several months ago the W3C convened a working group on Web Annotations,
> co-chaired by Rob.  This is  a major step towards a standard generic data
> model for annotations.  I have joined the working group,  in part to
> support BIBFRAME and my purpose in that respect is twofold. One, to
> determine to what extent web annotations, when stable, will support
> BIBFRAME. The more it does, the less work for BIBFRAME, and I am far more
> confident about that than I was a couple years ago.  But there is still a
> long way to go before we can properly assess this. Second, I hope to bring
> the BIBFRAME perspective to the web annotation group and hopefully help to
> inform the process.   I have so far brought several use cases to the group,
> with mixed reactions, but we’re working through it.
>
>
>
> It is my hope, for example, and I am optimistic, that Review and
> Description may no longer need to be BIBFRAME annotation classes, since (as
> Rob has noted) reviewing and describing are things commonly done on the web
> and will be done by annotating.
>
>
>
> Now consider table of contents (and while we’re at it, cover art).  As Rob
> says, there is only one “right answer” for table of contents, it is not
> institution specific, and (for the sake of discussion) let’s concede that
> point.   The point is, the table of contents is not part of the resource
> being annotated (nor is cover art).
>
>
>
> That takes us to the question at hand: what is the resource being
> annotated?
>
>
>
> A book “Gone With the Wind” is an abstract resource.  A bf:Work, i.e. a
> BIBFRAME Work,  is an RDF description of the book “Gone with the Wind”.
> The bf:Work is a BIBFRAME resource.  The abstract book “Gone With the Wind”
> is not a BIBFRAME resource.   It is the bf:Work that is being annotated.
> Typically  the bf:Work does not include a table of contents for the
> abstract Work it describes.  (There may be a table of contents in a note,
> but typically not.) Nor does it include cover art.   The book itself might
> include these things but the BIBFRAME description does not.  So these
> things annotate the BIBFRAME description.
>
>
>
> Now for HeldItem.  At the risk of oversimplification -- and please correct
> me if I am misrepresenting what you are saying, Rob --  the objection can
> be exemplified by properties like bf:circulationStatus and so on. The
> argument is:
>
> “bf:circulationStatus is intended to convey the circulation status of an
> item, but it is a property of an annotation, and the concept of circulation
> status of an annotation is nonsensical. “  Does that adequately summarize
> the argument?
>
>
>
> I don’t find that argument compelling.   Bf:circulationStatus does not
> need to be defined as “the circulation status of the annotation” it can be
> defined as “the circulation status of the item being annotated”.   Couldn’t
> it?
>
>
>
> In  any case, representing holdings information as annotations does seem
> to have caused much angst, and we are considering ways to model this
> differently.   In fact the BIBFRAME annotation model and specification will
> be revisited in its entirety, but that effort is on “hold”  for now,
> pending a bit more progress on the W3C work.
>
>
>
> Ray
>