Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Yes, but this was Guha’s proposal (from Google/schema.org) not Richards :-) I was interested in the original intention. I guess I should ask over on the public-vocabs.

//Ed

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> There is also the advantage of them getting calls in the middle of the night because *.schema.org is down as opposed to Richard getting called when bibliography.net goes down.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:55 PM
>> To: 'Ed Summers'
>> Cc: Wallis,Richard; Antoine Isaac; public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
>> 
>> One advantage of having them in the *.schema.org space (presumably)
>> would be that if someone typed in "microform" in their search box they
>> would discover http://bib.schema.org/Microform. That isn't the case with
>> current external extensions like http://bibliograph.net/Microform.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ed Summers [mailto:ehs@pobox.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:47 PM
>>> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>>> Cc: Wallis,Richard; Antoine Isaac; public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
>>> 
>>> I kind of missed the point of why reviewed extensions are desirable in
>>> Guha’s proposal. Is there some practical value to having a subdomain
>>> at e1.schema.org rather than putting the vocabularies at schema.org
>>> proper? I completely understand why there is value in external extensions.
>>> 
>>> //Ed
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> How about glam.schema.org?
>>>> 
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLAM_%28industry_sector%29
>>>> 
>>>> Jeff
>>>> 
>>>> From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:21 PM
>>>> To: Antoine Isaac
>>>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
>>>> 
>>>> Great to see us all diving in and discussing the name ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> As Tim implies most names have baggage or potential conflicts with
>>>> other
>>> domains.  So bibex.schema.org has some appeal - except for this perhaps:
>>> http://www.dama.upc.edu/technology-transfer/bibex  ‘bib.schema.org’
>>> came from the proposal itself, and I have often heard us referred to
>>> as the folks in the bib community.  Whatever, no need to make a decision
>> just yet.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As to Antoine’s question about sustainability, there are a couple of
>>>> angles
>>> to this.
>>>> 
>>>> Firstly there is an obvious concern from those behind schema.org
>>>> that
>>> extensions will be sustained.  From what I understand, the expectation
>>> will be that the definition of an extension will be held in a simple
>>> file that is publicly visible, say in Github, so that it can be pulled
>>> into the documentation when required as *.schema.org URIs are resolved.
>>>> 
>>>> Then there is the concern about the sustainability of schema.org
>>>> itself.  Yes
>>> in theory, the search engines could shut up shop and go home tomorrow,
>>> however the adoption is so wide already that they would find it
>>> difficult to do that.  Whatever eventually comes after schema.orgI
>>> suspect would need to provide an upgrade path from schema.org to be
>>> successful, and even then I would expect the need to preserve at least
>>> a frozen version of Schema.org would need be addressed before they
>> moved on.
>>>> 
>>>> All this being speculation of course, but my pragmatic view is
>>>> fairly
>>> optimistic.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ~Richard
>>>> 
>>>> On 11 Mar 2015, at 15:23, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> OK, Jeff!
>>>> Then I should perhaps have attached my comment somewhere else. But
>> I
>>>> don't want to remove it :)
>>>> 
>>>> Antoine
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/11/15 2:56 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Antoine,
>>>> 
>>>> My comment about purl.org was only to point out that *.schema.org
>>>> would
>>> be another potential recipe for people to consider:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#purls
>>>> 
>>>> Jeff
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:10 AM
>>>> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
>>>> 
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>> I think this is an interesting proposal, and approves that this
>>>> group would be an ideal forum to devise such an extension.
>>>> 
>>>> What I'm slightly worried about is the persistence of schema.org
>>>> extensions, if the community starts using them a lot.
>>>> 
>>>> Jeff mentioned about purl.org in the proposal
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-
>>>> hq53ZtP1NxRqpjCCuhVRRwqQmEuaAzWDQ7OuG18_pg/
>>>> I'm not sure schema.org extensions are better in every point to purl.org.
>>>> Say, if OCLC shuts down purl.org and wishes to hand it over to
>>>> someone else, there might be a consensus (and a consortium) in the
>>>> community to jump in and maintain it.
>>>> If schema.org is shut down by Google et al, doing this would be more
>>>> difficult, given the variety of people and orgs involved in the extensions.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't foresee shutting down schema.org as a problem per se. It is
>>>> meant for specific purposes, and if Google/Yahoo/Yandex think it's
>>>> not working, so be
>>>> it: they are the core stakeholders, and I'm ok with such natural
>>>> selection for vocabularies.
>>>> 
>>>> But the library community may start to rely on the schema.org
>>>> extension for "deeper" data exchange scenarios, beyond schema.org's
>>>> orginal case of web page mark-up. Some discussions and papers I've
>>>> seen in the past couple of months hint a bit at this. This could be
>>>> an
>>> awkward dependency.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Antoine
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/9/15 5:16 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> Last month I copied the SchemaBibEx list with the proposal
>>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Feb/0052.htm
>>>> l> 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>.
>>>> 
>>>>      o The domain group would manage their own publicly visible
>>>> view of what is current and proposed for their extensions - in
>>>> Github for
>>> example.
>>>> 
>>>>      o 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.).
>>>> 
>>>>      o In effect they will be validating on syntax, not the
>>>> semantics of and areas covered by the extensions.
>>>> 
>>>>      o 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
>>>> 
>