RE: Framing Use Cases (was: Annotating Bibliographic Information)

Doug  - thanks much for converting the document.

A few points.

> I took the further liberty of adding a couple of links that I found

> helpful in reading it; I didn't know before what BIBFRAME was, so I

> linked to the Wikipedia article on that;

Please link instead to

I also added a link to the

> BIBFRAME Annotation Model whitepaper, because I was confused about the

> way you were using the word "annotation". I hope my links help others on

> this list.

It probably is not a good idea to link to that, because it is so out of date.  I would say, the current paper (at hand) is much closer to the way BIBFRAME sees annotations. The BIBFRAME annotation paper will be revised, and the revision will much more reflect the W3C view of annotation.

> For me, however, that's not an exemplar of a Web Annotation. It's a

> specialized use with some overlap. Your technical terminology uses the

> word "annotation", but I think you mean it in a slightly different sense

> than what I'd call an annotation (and more like what I'd call

> "inheritance").

Well, much of my purpose participating in this work is to see if we can have a shared view of annotations which cover both your view and the bibliographic view.


> (For those not familiar with exemplar theory: if I ask you to name a

> type of bird, you're likely to say "pigeon" or "starling" or "hawk" or

> "duck"; you're less likely to say "ostrich", and even less likely still

> to say "penguin". These are all fine birds,  ....

Have to take issue with that.  From a US perspective, the Starling is NOT a "fine bird".  On the food chain, it’s slightly above the House Sparrow.

(Sorry, couldn’t resist that.)

Doug, I'll get to the rest of your message later, looks like it's going to take some time to get through.



Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 14:27:25 UTC