Re: Scope of this group's work

Yes Shlomo, thanks for these ­ it is good to see use case emerging, beyond
search engines being able to understand and index descriptions of our stuff.
(Thanks Jodi for transcription on to the wiki)

The search engines, who after all have created Schema.org, are obviously a
core use case for us, but not necessarily only for traditional search
requirements. 

Pointing again to the Knowledge Graph post from Google
<http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things
-not.html>, it is clear that they are moving towards building a global web
of linked entities (some of which we in this group we have a role in
describing and identifying).  The great thing about such a web is that is
something all can participate in and contribute towards, on the way
supporting some of the use cases you propose.

~Richard.


On 15/11/2012 11:12, "Jodi Schneider" <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Shlomo. Very practical and interesting. I added those to Use Cases:
> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases
> and anyone can edit them further
> 
> I think that the existing use cases there could be made more end-user-centric.
> Perhaps we should have both end-user scenarios and search engine scenarios on
> the use cases page.
> 
> -Jodi
> 
> On 15 Nov 2012, at 11:00, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
> 
>> When I said scenarios I was referring to description of how some user (could
>> be computer system or person) would use the schema.org <http://schema.org>
>> described data in general or some attribute in particular.
>>  
>> Examples:
>> ·         Library software (e.g. Ex Libris Alma) would use a vendor site to
>> support real time decision to buy a book (i.e. from Amazon) and have
>> delivered to  student as opposed to routing the user request to ILL. If
>> multiple vendors support schema.org <http://schema.org>  than this would be
>> easier to support more vendors, comparison and buy based on Library rules
>> (price, time to delivery, etc.).
>> Discussion of attributes is now around what is needed for the scenario to
>> work.
>> ·         Some smart phone travel app  want to direct its customers to
>> history books (even better eBooks and eArticles) available to him in his
>> library that describe his travel location (e.g. some place in China).
>> Libraries supporting schema.org <http://schema.org>  would enable the smart
>> phone app to use library  resources and display rich information regarding
>> the possibilities. I doubt that they would want to use MARC J.  This scenario
>> requires discussion of appropriate copy, what entails rich information for
>> such a solution, etc.
>> ·         Going back to the fictional persons discussion. What is the use
>> case (besides justŠ nice to know and display somewhere)?
>>  
>> I am not saying that good descriptive data isn¹t important unless you know
>> the scenario.
>> I am saying that knowing the scenario will improve the chances that the
>> solution fits at least one use (scenario) and hopefully also guides the
>> discussion to discussing scenarios that the group feels are more of a
>> priority now.
>>  
>> Shlomo
>>  
>>  
>> From: Jodi Schneider [mailto:jodi.schneider@deri.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:17 PM
>> To: Shlomo Sanders
>> Cc: kcoyle@kcoyle.net; public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Scope of this group's work
>>  
>> Hi Shlomo,
>>  
>> Are use cases of any help?
>>  
>> http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases
>>  
>> It would be great if you could add a scenario -- or suggest one that could be
>> added....
>>  
>> -Jodi
>>  
>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 06:49, Shlomo Sanders wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The scope page is missing scenarios.
>> If there are no real and prioritize scenarios then how we be sure if 100
>> mails concerning Mickey Mouse is where the time should be spent?
>> 
>> Search Engines and People that use Search Engines are 2 VERY different types
>> of scenarios.
>> Search Engines sounds like we understand what the scenarios/objectives but I
>> am not sure even that is true.
>> 
>> Shlomo
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:41 PM
>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Scope of this group's work
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/14/12 2:22 AM, Adrian Pohl wrote:
>> 
>> As already mentioned in the last mail, here are some questions I am
>>> interested in regarding a definition of the scope of this group's
>>> work. Most of these questions have already been posed but I think it
>>> is important to specify an answer and define the scope a clear as
>>> possible on the wiki.
>>>  
>>> - Is this group only about creating a schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>> extension for
>>> bibliographic data in a narrower sense, i.e.: descriptions of
>>> bibliographic resources plus person data/authority data in general?
>> 
>> Adrian,
>> 
>> As a starting point for discussion, I would separate bibliographic resources
>> and authority data into two different options. There are a number of efforts
>> (ISNI, ORCID) to identify named agents, of which library authority files are
>> one. These are separate data sources from what we usually think of as
>> "bibliographic data," and in current data not always linked in an actionable
>> way. Similarly, subject authority files are another separate (but potentially
>> linkable) source of data that provide additional information (broader,
>> narrower, related) that is not carried in the bibliographic record itself.
>> (We need to remember that schema.org <http://schema.org>  is mark-up for web
>> pages -- and ask: what information is on the page?)
>> 
>> This is why I feel uneasy about including things like "pseudonym" or
>> "fictional person" in our work, because that information generally resides in
>> the authority data but is not be present in the bibliographic data, and not
>> displayed on the bibliographic display web page (today).
>> By discussing these distinctions as part of bibliographic data I think that
>> we are mixing bibliographic and authority data as if they are one and the
>> same, which they are not. It DOES make sense to develop schema.org
>> <http://schema.org>  properties for authority data, but our discussion will
>> be less confusing if we talk about bibliographic and authority data
>> separately (IMO).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Or is this group's work also about providing information about
>>> holdings, offers, availability, price, services, sites etc.? As access
>>> in general was already discussed here and seen as a desirable use
>>> case, the group probably at least has also to cover the services
>>> resources are provided by, their access restrictions, locatio &
>>> opening hours (if applicable) etc.
>> 
>> This reflects my question about whether we are talking about bibliographic
>> data in general (which would include citations, bibliographies, etc.) or
>> specifically LIBRARY bibliographic data. If we are focused on library
>> bibliography data then we need to think about how we anticipate that data
>> will be used by search engines (which is your next question). WHY do we want
>> to surface library data (or bibliographic data in general) to search engines?
>> 
>> 
>> - Another important question
>> 
>> regarding scope was already discussed on this list: Which data
>>> providers do we have in mind to use this extension? Do we focus on
>>> library data or do we want to propose a standard that's useful  for
>>> most of the agents that provide bibliographic information on the web
>>> (authors, publishers, booksellers, libraries, social cataloging
>>> websites, universities etc.)? Although there already seems to be
>>> consensus that the extension should not only cover libraries as
>>> publishers,  I see that most group members[1] are somehow linked to
>>> the library world. Shouldn't we invite more representatives of the
>>> different publishers of bibliographic data on the web, then? Have more
>>> people from other organizations already been invited?
>> 
>> My understanding is that schema.org <http://schema.org>  grows unevenly based
>> on who shows up to request extensions. If you look at the current state of
>> schema.org <http://schema.org>  it is very detailed in some areas, and not at
>> all detailed in others. There is also some fairly uncontrolled overlap
>> between interested parties.
>> This is quite different to how we tend to develop standards in the library
>> world.
>> 
>> Between the descriptions for schema.org/Book <http://schema.org/Book>  and
>> the data in the product category, I believe that booksellers have already
>> expressed their needs.
>> (I don't see a way to track who suggested what sets of properties for the
>> original set, unfortunately.) The schema.org <http://schema.org>  wiki [1]
>> shows efforts underway.  We are not listed on the proposals page [2] yet, but
>> note that there are proposals for scholarly article and for comic books, both
>> of which have considerable overlap with general bibliographic concepts.
>> 
>> All this to say that my impression is that schema.org <http://schema.org>
>> development takes place by and for particular communities (booksellers, car
>> sales agents, medical services) rather than being organized around "things."
>> Its focus is on the surfacing of particular services and offers on the web,
>> not describing the world. (This is my interpretation, of course.) The medical
>> area [3] is an interesting example that might be closer to libraries than the
>> product-oriented ones. It appears to reflect the kinds of medical information
>> that exists today in web pages.
>> 
>> We COULD define our target as library web pages, and/or as library catalog
>> web displays. It makes sense to me to model our work around web pages rather
>> than data in databases. I also think we should consider the display of
>> library catalog data separately from library "web pages" -- those pages that
>> have information about the library. I'm not saying that we shouldn't also
>> consider that data, but, like in the medical example, it may be a different
>> set of elements.
>> 
>> kc
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/SchemaDotOrgProposals
>> [3] http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html
>> 
>>  
>>>> From the foregoing discussion it sounded much like...
>>> a) the intended schema.org <http://schema.org>  extension should be useful
>>> by for diverse
>>> individuals and organizations publishing bibliographic data on the
>>> web. b) the term "bibliographic data" is interpreted quite broadly as
>>> it not only covers descriptions of bibliographic resources, of authors
>>> etc. but also information about where and how an item can be obtained
>>> (lend, bought, streamed etc.)  and by whom.
>>>  
>>> I already made a first start defining the scope on the "Scope" page
>>> [2]. As said, we should also think about what people to invite to this
>>> group that are not from the library world.
>>>  
>>> Adrian
>>>  
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/participants
>>>  
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Scope.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>> 
>>  
> 
>