RE: schema.org and libraries

Bernhard,

I haven't looked closely, but my impression is that they are creating 1)
yet another RDF notation (similar to RDFa) and 2) yet another kitchen
sink ontology (similar to dbpedia-owl). An RDFS+OWL interpretation of
the latter has already been started:

http://schema.rdfs.org/

OWL has mapping capabilities, so I'm sure many of these overlapping
ontologies will get reconciled at that level eventually. I see that
schema.org has a mechanism to "extend" existing vocabulary terms
(presumably mappable to rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf). Their
"EBook/KindleBook" example of extending "an enum item" has me wondering
if that feature is some weird variant of SKOS: 

http://schema.org/docs/extension.html

I suspect that microformats will be less intimidating for developers
than RDFa, but I still think the Cool URIs (Linked Data) patterns with
separate RDF documents will be more forward-compatible. As the Linked
Data tools get better and more RDF datasets get supplied in bulk, I
suspect the desire to embed semantics in HTML will die off.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Bernhard Haslhofer
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 12:01 PM
> To: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: schema.org and libraries
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I guess many of you already know that Google, Bing and Yahoo announced
> http://schema.org/ - a kind of "Ueberschema" for structured data on
the
> Web. I have been following this mailing list for a while and was
> wondering that this - I would say quite relevant development - has not
> been discussed yet. I am just curious to hear what library people
think
> about it so I formulated some questions that came into my mind:
> 
> 1.) Should libraries start describing their objects using the
> schema.org vocabulary or can they safely ignore that development?
> 
> 2.) Many libraries already expose their data as Linked Data. Is it
> necessary to align these developments with schema.org?
> 
> 3.) Are there already any plans of using the schema.org extension
> mechanism (http://schema.org/docs/extension.html) for library
> vocabularies?
> 
> 4.) schema.org seems to follow so kind of "evolutionary" schema
> development approach: "Extensions that gain significant adoption on
the
> web may be moved into the core schema.org vocabulary, so that search
> engines can provide more functionality based on better understanding
of
> the structured data." If schema.org is relevant for libraries, how
does
> this affect current and future developments of library vocabularies
> such as FRBR, RDA, etc.?
> 
> I would be happy to hear opinions on that. I will try to summarize
them
> later...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bernhard
> 
> _____________________
> 
> Bernhard Haslhofer
> Postdoctoral Associate
> Cornell Information Science
> 
> 301 College Ave.
> Ithaca, NY 14850
> 
> Phone: +1-607-379-0831
> Skype: bernhard.haslhofer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2011 18:54:21 UTC