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 >