RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Karen,

Speaking only for myself...

Gaining consensus on priorities does seem to be taking a long time, but some of the things on your list can be accounted for:

http://schema.org/Library
http://schema.org/IndividualProduct (FRBR Item)
http://schema.org/SomeProducts and/or perhaps http://schema.org/Offer (Holdings)
http://schema.org/ProductModel (W/E/M) with http://schema.org/model to relate them vertically

I think we agreed to move the "Collection" proposal forward. I assume it's in the pipeline somewhere.

I agree that audiobook is surprising in its absence. I've been using http://www.productontology.org/id/AudioBook in its place, but as you suggest this doesn't account for some useful properties.

I agree there is a surprising gap in Schema.org when it comes to content-carrier. I suspect this argument would be more compelling if we approached it from a Product perspective. For example, I want to buy a *leather* coat or a *large-print* book.

I know that Richard has a lot of sympathy for Identifiers, but given the baked-in identifier goodness of Linked Data I tend to find the notion quite strange. 

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:01 PM
> To: Ed Summers
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org
> 
> Ed, thanks. I concur with your statement that I entered this group with
> the idea of getting a few mark-up elements that would make current
> library data more visible. I have no intention of creating another
> library-specific metadata scheme.
> 
> I feel like the majority of my energy in the group has been spent in
> countering proposals that I don't think are interesting or have
> priority. I would rather develop a consensus on a small group of
> proposals that are useful today and have high impact. There are some
> proposals in our wiki:
> 
> Object types:
>    audiobook
>    library
>    library holdings
> 
> Vocabulary proposals
>    identifier
>    commonEndeavor
>    content-carrier
>    audiobook
>    collection
> 
> These rarely show up on the meeting agendas. When someone adds one of
> them to the agenda (as I have done) they are given short shrift. I also
> think that other topics would come up if they had a chance of getting
> discussed. I hope that others will weigh in with suggestions and
> proposals, although the lack of response to the current ones may have
> served to discourage participation.
> 
> Note that the audiobook proposal is fully developed, with examples, and
> I have provided considerable background information for the library
> holdings one. I will task myself to turn that into a vocabulary
> proposal, with examples.
> 
> I have no interest in replicating BIBFRAME in schema.org. This is NOT
> the schemaBIBFRAME group.
> 
> kc
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/28/13 7:35 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> > Thanks for sharing this Karen. I haven't read the article, and am
> > somewhat unlikely to now, but I was personally never interested much
> > in FRBRizing schema.org. I was (and continue to be) interested in
> > adding whatever small bits we need to schema.org to make it more
> > useful to applications and services we want to build. If schemabibex
> > could provide input to Google and other search engines to display
> > bibliographic information better in search results that would be
> > great. It also seems like tools like Google Scholar would be a fair
> > bit more useful with a bit of schema.org mixed into their HTML. But I
> > also think there is also an opportunity for smaller groups (dpla,
> > europeana, etc) to use schema.org metadata expressed in web pages for
> > providing views onto pockets of cultural heritage material on the
> Web.
> >
> > I guess I'm jaded at this point, but the library and the linked data
> > communities seem far too fixated on getting the metadata just right
> > for some future applications to use, instead of building applications
> > that use what we already have, using existing standards. I always
> > hoped that schema-bibex would be a place to share ideas about how we
> > wanted to use the data in our systems and services, and figure out
> > what vocabulary bits we needed to add to make them better. It seems
> > like too much energy goes into making new standards, that are
> > associated with particular institutions, and that little energy is
> > left for the work of actually putting the data to use.
> >
> > //Ed
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Shlomo Sanders
> > <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shlomo
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:46, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Karen. I generally concur with your reaction (although I have
> >> to admit that for the first time in my life I was getting hung up on
> >> the _terrible_ kerning of the font in the PDF, so had been reading
> >> through it rather slowly).
> >>
> >> I was surprised by many of the statements in the paper about the
> >> direction, decisions, thoughts, and beliefs of the Schema BibEx
> >> group. Perhaps if all (or most) of those statements were modified to
> >> say they were the direction, decisions, thoughts, beliefs "of the
> >> OCLC employees currently participating in the Schema BibEx
> community"
> >> that would be more acceptable--certainly closer to the truth.
> >>
> >> I very much value the opinions (& Richard's leadership) of the OCLC
> >> participants in this group, but cannot endorse this paper as an
> >> accurate reflection of the group's positions, direction, etc as a
> >> whole, particularly with respect to BIBFRAME.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Richard, now that I've gotten further along in reading this, I
> think
> >>> that "posting it to the list" is the least that you should have
> >>> done. This document, written by OCLC and not vetted by this list,
> >>> attributes to the schema bibex group a number of decisions and
> >>> thoughts that I do not recognize. It uses "we" to mean not OCLC but
> >>> the bibex group. I find this more than just problematic - this is
> at
> >>> least arrogant and possibly dishonest. I now find decisions
> >>> attributed to this group that I cannot condone, yet as a member of
> >>> the group one could infer that they are mine as well.
> >>>
> >>> OCLC cannot speak for this group, and it definitely cannot speak
> for
> >>> this group in a document that this group did not even see. Godby
> >>> stated that this would be presented at the BIBFRAME session at ALA.
> >>> If it is presented as the thoughts of the bibex group and not OCLC,
> you should be ashamed.
> >>>
> >>> Here are just a few examples from the document:
> >>>
> >>> "This shift in focus implies a decision by the SchemaBibEx
> community
> >>> to defer to the important standards initiatives of the library
> >>> community, including BIBFRAME, to develop vocabulary required for
> >>> detailed descriptions of library resources." p. 11 - I do not think
> we have discussed this at all.
> >>> In fact, we haven't really discussed the relationship of schema.org
> >>> and BIBFRAME in any detail, and I'm not sure it is necessarily
> >>> appropriate for us to do so in this forum. There may be some folks
> >>> on the group who aren't even paying attention to BIBFRAME, but who
> >>> wish to mark up bibliographic displays unrelated to libraries.
> >>>
> >>> "Though the BIBFRAME initiative needs to develop its own policy
> with
> >>> regard to the Product Types Ontology, the SchemaBibEx community
> sees
> >>> little need to define and maintain a competing vocabulary for
> >>> content types and carriers." p. 17 - Again, a decision that I do
> not
> >>> recall. Also, AFAIK, no one except Jeff has promoted the use of the
> >>> product types ontology, and we haven't discussed its use in any
> detail in the group.
> >>>
> >>> "The SchemaBIBEx community is exploring the possiblity that
> >>> schema:IndividualProduct ... corresponds reasonably well to the
> >>> definition of FRBR Item." p. 17 - We haven't really touched on the
> >>> item level yet. This is one idea, but it is premature to attribute
> this thinking to the group.
> >>>
> >>> "To move forward, two issues must be resolved. First, we must reach
> >>> agreement on working definitions of key concepts. Then we must
> solve
> >>> the technical problem of mismatched expectations about domain and
> >>> range values..." p. 18 - I object to the use of "we" here because
> it
> >>> is talking about the work of the SchemaBibEx group, not OCLC. This
> >>> implies that the document is coming from the bibex group, not OCLC.
> That is not true.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the blunt talk, but this document must be re-written to
> >>> reflect that it is the thoughts and opinions of OCLC, not the bibex
> >>> group. And that absolutely must be made clear at ALA.
> >>>
> >>> kc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu Jun 27 10:41:15 2013, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Karen for posting this to the list.  Travelling got in the
> >>>> way of me ensuring that it was published here and on the BIBFRAME
> >>>> list at about the same time.
> >>>>
> >>>> ~Richard.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27/06/2013 11:59, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you are on the BIBFRAME list you will have seen a message from
> >>>>> Jean Godby with a link to her paper:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Godby, Carol Jean. 2013. The Relationship between BIBFRAME and
> the
> >>>>> Schema.org ŒBib Extensions¹ Model: A Working Paper. Dublin, Ohio:
> >>>>> OCLC Research.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013
> >>>>> /2013-05
> >>>>> ..pdf.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This 41 page(!) paper is an excellent analysis of the possible
> >>>>> relationship between BIBFRAME and schema.org. This is a topic
> >>>>> which we have not discussed directly in this group, and I would
> >>>>> like to propose that we could merge this discussion with our
> >>>>> consideration of "instanceOf" and "has Instance" -- which we
> >>>>> decided to push to this list at the end of our last webex meeting
> on Tuesday, June 25.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The paper presents the alignment of schema.org and FRBR as a
> >>>>> primary goal of this group [1]. I take exception to that, as may
> >>>>> others. But I believe that the underlying question is the
> >>>>> coordination of BIBFRAME and schema.org, and that should be
> >>>>> discussed first. There are obvious benefits to the library
> >>>>> community to bringing these two into alignment, but we should
> also
> >>>>> discuss whether we can do so without silo-ing library data once
> again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> kc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] "The main objective of the redesign is to improve the
> >>>>> representation of the FRBR hierarchy using concepts already
> defined in Schema.org.
> >>>>> Since the application of the FRBR hierarchy requires the
> >>>>> association of descriptions with differing degrees of
> abstraction,
> >>>>> the schemaBibEx community has also proposed the properties
> >>>>> hasInstance and isInstanceOf, whose semantics resemble the
> BIBFRAME properties with the same names."
> >>>>> (Godby, p. 11)
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Karen Coyle
> >>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> >>>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >>>>> skype: kcoylenet
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Karen Coyle
> >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >>> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >>> skype: kcoylenet
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 16:39:41 UTC