W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [metadata] FYI: BIBTEX Update at the LoC

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:19:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGRT9H2uuZbrd2O7EtpNF0w=BuMWF9+mxRtYEVeHpM25w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 05 Dec 2013, at 14:47 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > My concerns with the Bibframe effort are many, but their explicit
> decision NOT to reuse any existing ontologies is extremely worrying.
>


> I do understand (and agree with!) the concern but we may be at the
> beginning of a road here. As far as I can see, the core BIBFRAME model is
> extremely simple[1], and it becomes, potentially, more powerful by using it
> as just a scaffolding mechanism to possibly combine terms from different
> vocabularies. O.k., this may be a wishful thinking from my side, but I want
> to give Zepheira/LoC the benefit of the doubt at this time on that...
>


I would like to believe that, but having tried for many months to engage
with the LC process (and I also have worked with the LC folk in the past)
without success, I'm less hopeful of a good outcome in any reasonable time
period.

For example, this thread:
  http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1305&L=bibframe&T=0&P=33784

And also that month, see the long discussions about annotation which ended
up with LC minting their own practically identical set of predicates to
Open Annotation due mostly to not understanding some of the basics of RDF :(

If there's any pressure that could be brought to bear on LC to change their
viewpoint on re-use of other ontologies would be great.

Rob
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 16:19:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:18 UTC