- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:52:03 -0800
- To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
Oops, didn't send to list. Sorry - kc -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Audience for Schema Bib extension Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:46:46 -0800 From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> Reply-To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net To: Dawson, Laura <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> I think at the moment we have no choice but to see search engines as our current target. This doesn't rule out other uses. From the schema.org page: "On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure." http://schema.org When I look at our use cases, most of them do not make reference to search engine functionality. Perhaps that's a place where we could start... by clarifying for each use case what search/display function it serves. I have proposed one search engine-related use case [1] that is partially covered on the use case wiki page. Another option would be to look at the non-library use cases and seek analogous ones that would involve library materials. For example, the medical community has created documentation to explain their approach to schema.org [2] mark-up and how they think it will help users. We probably need a similar statement to explain WHY library-related metadata is relevant to schema.org goals. kc [1] http://kcoyle.blogspot.com/2012/09/rich-snippets.html [2] http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html On 11/5/12 2:02 PM, Dawson, Laura wrote: > I think search engines is a great scope, simply because that is where > end-users go to look for information about things - information that > should include at the very LEAST listings for books. > > Even if we keep it to that scope to start, we're getting at the heart of > the problem. Once we get this figured out for the search engines > involved in Schema, we can then use what we've learned for additional > consumers. > On Nov 5, 2012, at 4:34 PM, Kevin Ford <kefo@3windmills.com > <mailto:kefo@3windmills.com>> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> In the interest of moving this along, is it possible for us to >> identify the audience for the schema.org <http://schema.org> >> bibliographic extension? >> >> Personally, I think it is rather simple: search engines generally, but >> primarily Google, Yahoo!, and Bing. I'm not against other consumers >> (those that are not search engines) but I would like to know why/how >> the schema.org <http://schema.org> vocabulary should be modified for >> those additional consumers and, perhaps more importantly, how/why the >> schema.org <http://schema.org> maintainers would accept those >> recommendations if they do not benefit the schema.org >> <http://schema.org> designers. I suspect a justification will have to >> be made for the extension to find approval. Is this assumption correct? >> >> In any event, I think that clearly identifying the audience for this >> extension would help us focus not only the use cases but also the >> resulting extension recommendation. >> >> Yours, >> >> Kevin >> >> -- >> Kevin Ford >> Network Development and MARC Standards Office >> Library of Congress >> Washington, DC >> >> >> >> > > Laura Dawson > Product Manager, Identifiers > Bowker > 908-219-0082 > 917-770-6641 > laura.dawson@bowker.com <mailto:laura.dawson@bowker.com> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 23:52:18 UTC