Re: schema.org and ONIX...

On 14 Apr 2014, at 09:48 , AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> wrote:

> Ivan,
> 
> I try to answer your precise questions. 
> 
> - Publishers use ONIX to transfer metadata to distributors and the goal is that these metadata are exposed in bookstores on the Web. Thus, there are hopefully Web pages with titles, authors, covers, series, subjects, etc, we sent using ONIX, and we hope these are visible to search engine for our books to be discoverable. 
> 
> - as publisher, in our title management system, we have a list of a dozen mandatory fields for digital products metadata. Unless they are all completed, the product cannot be distributed. This could be considered as the mini ONIX you are referring to. 

Great to both! In other words, a schema.org approach may indeed make sense. Of course, there is quite some work to do in reconciling this with what is already in schema and identifying what we want, but that is fine.

Gerardo referred to my contact to Dan Brickley in one of his mails; needless to say, that I plan to get him involved if and when we think we have a clearer plans. We should probably also talk to Guha at Google, who is one of the driving persons behind schema.org (and yes, I know him, too).

Ivan


> 
> Best 
> Luc
> 
>> Le 8 avr. 2014 à 11:49, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> a écrit :
>> 
>> So here are the discussions that we would have to have: 
>> 
>> - Are there (or would there be) pages on the Web using, essentially, ONIX based metadata in them (in some format)? What I mean is that if the metadata is hidden in databases behind the scenes, revealed only as a result of some request, then that data is invisible to Google/Yahoo/Bing/etc.  However, if that data is, or would be used on Web pages (like catalogues, stuff like that), then it suddenly becomes visible. We would have to have a conversation with Guha and others to see if it makes sense to them. Again, I believe that I can get together a chat with him, Dan Brickley (alias DanBri), and some people from the publishing community.
>> 
>> - How much energy and time would it take to strip down ONIX to a bare minimum? Remember that schema.org vocabularies are usually small. I mean: 20-30 classes with related properties... compared to ONIX that is minuscule. Would EDItEUR even consider such a mini-ONIX? That is clearly a discussion to have separately.
>> 
>> - Then of course the work has to be done. Because the IG is not chartered to develop specifications, this should probably be done in a separate, tightly chartered group that, actually, could be a Community Group, too. I am not 100% sure on how these things are done with schema.org, but it is the role of DanBri to discuss that with us.
>> 
>> I did not think all this through in detail, but Bill did say that some of his interviewees have referred to this possibility. That was what rang a bell to me listening to Guha...
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>>> On 08 Apr 2014, at 17:12 , AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ivan and Bill,
>>> 
>>> That's a very good exercise and I will share thoughts with Bill at London Book Fair if possible. 
>>> I'm really interested as I'm wondering what it will bring for more ebooks discoverability on the Web beyond the ONIX feeds we provide already to distributors and digital bookstores. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Luc
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Le 8 avr. 2014 à 05:24, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> Bill,
>>>> 
>>>> I am currently at a Linked Data Workshop at a conference in Seoul, which had a keynote from R. Guha, who is, in some sense, the "father" of schema.org. Listening to him (combining also with my past experience), and also referring to the note I sent around earlier this morning[1] I am more and more serious in thinking that a stripped-down version of ONIX defined in schema.org might be a great idea. Of course, we have to see whether there is a business interest and business case for this: is there a use case for publishers as well as for search engines? But if the answer is yes on both, than this may be an important thing to do.
>>>> 
>>>> I do know Guha personally relatively well, as well as Dan Brickley, who is the other person running schema.org's vocabulary development. I would be happy to make the links and go into the discussions but, of course, the question is whether publishers, as well as institutions like Bowker, would be interested by something like that. I think that clarifying this, ie, set up the use cases, would be perfectly in line with the IG's charter (although we probably would have to spawn a different group to make the specification itself, but that is all right.)
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/london-book-fair/article/61722-london-book-fair-2014-publishers-and-internet-standards.html
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf