RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

ISBNs are lucky in that way. There are more ways to "identify an ISBN" than you can shake a stick at. ;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LAURA DAWSON [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:58 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR); kcoyle@kcoyle.net; Ed Summers
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org
> 
> Ahhhh, got it. Yes, I haven't made up my mind myself (after thinking a
> lot about this for thirteen months), but so long as ISBNs are a
> requirement in some fashion, Bowker's happy. ;)
> 
> On 6/28/13 12:44 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> >For example, Richard and I disagree about ISBNs. He thinks they should
> >be treated as literals and I think they should be treated as Linked
> >Data (with the letters "http://" out in front).
> >
> >Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: LAURA DAWSON [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:42 PM
> >> To: Young,Jeff (OR); kcoyle@kcoyle.net; Ed Summers
> >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org
> >>
> >> Jeff, could you clarify what you mean by "baked-in identifier
> >> goodness"? I think I know what you mean but I don't want to jump to
> >> conclusions.
> >>
> >> On 6/28/13 12:39 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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 17:15:42 UTC