SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Hi All,

Last month I copied the SchemaBibEx list with the proposal<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Feb/0052.html> from Guha, on the public-vocabs list, for an extension mechanism for the Schema.org<http://Schema.org> vocabulary.

As I said at the time, I welcome this proposal which will enable the broad extension of Schema.org<http://Schema.org> to satisfy many needs of individual sectors without loosing the essential generic cross sector nature of Schema itself.  I also have some confidence in the approach proposed as it has been used in a very similar way to produce the BiblioGraph.net<http://BiblioGraph.net> extension vocabulary that was referred to in the proposal.

In simple terms, my understanding of how this would operate is thus:

  *   A group of individuals from an interested domain or sector would take on the role of discussing and deciding what extension types and properties could usefully be added to a [their] domain specific extension to schema.org<http://schema.org>.
     *   The domain group would manage their own publicly visible view of what is current and proposed for their extensions - in Github for example.
     *   The domain group would propose their initial, then later updates, extension to the core Schema.org<http://Schema.org> group.

  *   The core group upon receiving extension proposals would discuss and recommend, only from the point of view of compatibility with the overall vocabulary (Type & Property name conflicts etc.).
     *   In effect they will be validating on syntax, not the semantics of and areas covered by the extensions.
     *   When accepted the schema.org<http://schema.org> site would be configured to include the latest version of the extension and its associated examples.

I am suggesting that the SchemaBibEx Group, or a subset of it, is the ideal group to act as the Domain Group for the broad bibliographic domain - bib.schema.org<http://bib.schema.org>.

What are people’s thoughts on this - the extension proposal itself, bib.schema.org<http://bib.schema.org>, the potential for our group to participate as a domain group?

Currently Guha’s proposal is just a proposal, but I know there is discussion and efforts going into establishing it as a way forward.  Being able to offer support and intention to offer up one of the first extensions I believe would be good for Schema.org<http://Schema.org> and the broad description of bibliographic data on the web.

On a practical note, Guha’s proposal used the small BibloGraph.net<http://bibliograph.net/> extension vocabulary as an example to model things on.  As editor of BiblioGraph.net<http://BiblioGraph.net> I see no problem with the terms within that vocabulary acting a seed for a bib.schema.org<http://bib.schema.org> extension which would eventually replace the current need for it.


~Richard