Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 12, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> >
> > I assume the schema.org editors will incorporate the bits they think
> are worthy into schema.org proper. It's the domain-specific remainder
> bits that don't pass their editorial muster that we still need a place for.
>
> Right, so why can't this vocabulary content live externally on the Web
> (outside of schema.org) until such a time as it is ready to be pulled in?
> Why incubate it at sub-domains of schema.org?
>
> I guess I'm not convinced that perceived SEO and not having to host an
> html page are worth the cost of complexity at schema.org.
>

What I like about biblio.schema.org:
* it gives us a reason and a working model to continue to flesh out
proposals as a W3C Community Group (whereas SchemaBibEx kind of lost steam
last year)
* there is potential to redirect schema.org issues and pull requests to the
relevant working group repository / issue tracker to ensure that the right
participants are involved
* perhaps most importantly, it clarifies that anything published at
biblio.schema.org would represent the agreement of the SchemaBibEx
community, rather than the occasional misunderstanding that bibliograph.net
represents the will of the bibliographic community

What I fear about biblio.schema.org:
* that it will be misunderstood as a place to reinvent entire vocabularies
(e.g. enumerating every possible contributor type for every possible type
of CreativeWork)
* that the scope of extensions will vary widely and confusion about where
discussions should be held will occur (see Guha's enthusiasm over
comics.schema.org which IMO should have been immediately redirected to
SchemaBibEx; thankfully subsequent comments clarified that a bit)
* that as we start finding the need to adding properties to core schema.org
types like CreativeWork, they will conflict with properties that other
sub.schema.org groups feel a need for and we'll end up rehashing the same
discussions again at the core schema.org level
* ultimately, that anything not in core schema.org will largely be ignored,
and (on really bad days) that the whole subdomain.schema.org extension
proposal is just a way to give the illusion of participation to groups that
schema.org partners doesn't really have an interest in engaging with. (To
be clear, I don't really think that; my trust level in danbri is extremely
high and I don't believe he would put forth a proposal simply to appease
groups like ours. But there's a great big leap of faith required that the
schema.org partners will take subdomains.schema.org seriously).

We all have limited time to contribute, so we want anything we pour our
energy into to have the greatest possible positive results. I'll admit that
I'm conflicted. I think the most important thing, for me, is for
SchemaBibEx to simply start being active again and addressing significant
gaps where they exist. I guess if I was forced to choose, then I would
prefer that the group simply go back to preparing proposals for core
schema.org.