Print

Print


With my Web Annotation co-chair hat on ... we think that we have considered
the use cases from the bibframe work, and that it will work as expected :)
 We'd be very happy for further participants from the cultural heritage and
library domains to make certain of that.

That said, the issues that were raised here regarding annotations also
apply in that space, such as the very valid questions as to why an
Annotation is required at all, rather than just a regular RDF triple.

If there are real issues, please do raise them.

Rob


On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Murray, Ronald <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Shouldn’t the W3C Web Annotation Working Group arrange to have its
> deliberations informed by the requirements for bibliographic annotations as
> BIBFRAME has come to “appreciate" them?
>
> I get the impression that how Cultural Heritage people think about
> annotating resources bibliographically will surface issues that could be
> appropriately theorized and implemented up front by the Working Group – but
> which would cause problems if the issues had to be addressed after
> *set-in-stone* time. Case in point: FRBR’s unified, multiple
> point-of-view on a resource.
>
> Ron Murray
>
> From: <Denenberg>, Ray <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Bibliographic Forum <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:20 PM
> To: Bibliographic Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] BF Core Classes
>
> I responded earlier to this question, for authorities.  Following is the
> explanation of why we intend to remove class bf:Annotation in BIBFRAME 2.0.
>
>
>
> The BIBFRAME annotation model developed for BIBFRAME 1.0 is well over two
> years old. Our current thinking is that  it is over-engineered, has some
> significant flaws, and is completely obsolete.  As I was the principal
> editor I take responsibility for the engineering and flaws.  At the time, I
> was just beginning to learn about annotations. Community development of an
> annotation model was far less mature, and, we believed, did not seem to
> address bibliographic requirements.
>
>
>
> A lot has changed since then, most notably the chartering of a formal W3C
> Web Annotation Working Group. Prior to that there was simply an informal
> Open Annotation Community Group.  I have been an active participant of the
> new W3C group and am confident that the annotation model will be general
> enough to handle any bibliographic requirements, without the need for any
> BIBFRAME specific properties of classes.
>
>
>
> Web Annotations will allow anyone to annotate any Web resource, including
> any BIBFRAME resource. There will be nothing in BIBFRAME 2.0 to preclude
> that, and most likely nothing necessary to support it.
>
>
>
> It may be useful to develop a Web Annotation profile for bibliographic
> information. It would be premature to begin that effort now because the Web
> Annotation Specifications are not yet stable, and also because we don’t
> really have a complete understanding of the requirements for bibliographic
> annotations.  What we had thought were the basic annotation types for
> BIBFRAME don’t seem to be as useful or appropriate as we had thought, for
> example, cover art and table of contents, and most importantly, holdings,
> with the addition of Item as a new core class, and its decoupling from
> holdings.
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
> Of *Shlomo Sanders
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 17, 2015 1:39 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [BIBFRAME] BF Core Classes
>
>
>
> What will replace  bf:Annotation and bf:Authority ?
>
> In my option, both made sense and were understandable by those without put
> LD background.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shlomo
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2015, at 20:52, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
> The plan right now is that there will be no bf:Annotation or bf:Authority
> classes in 2.0.  --Ray
>
>
>
> *From:* Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum [
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf
> Of *Ehlert, Mark K.
> *Sent:* Monday, November 16, 2015 10:09 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* [BIBFRAME] BF Core Classes
>
>
>
> On the first page of the BF 2.0 Item Draft Proposal
> <http://www.loc.gov/bibframe/docs/pdf/bf2-draftspecitems-10-29-2015.pdf>
> it states: “Thus there will be three core classes: Work, Instance, and
> Item.”  Does this signal that bf:Annotation and bf:Authority are no longer
> core?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark K. Ehlert                 O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
> Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas
>
>   Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue
>
> Phone: 651-962-5488            St. Paul, MN 55105
>
> <http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>
>
>   "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
>
> the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
>
> Verona," Act I, Scene iii
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305