RE: Audience for Schema Bib extension

"Links that lead directly to electronic resources licensed by the
corresponding institution" is the problem that OpenURL was supposed to
solve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenURL

As we've seen, though, search engines never bought into the OpenURL idea
despite the letters "URL" in the name. That's because they aren't really
URLs. If Schema.org is the solution, we (publishers, libraries, search
engines together) need to address that shortcoming.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Scott [mailto:dscott@laurentian.ca]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 5:49 PM
> To: Kevin Ford; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Audience for Schema Bib extension
> 
> Hi Kevin:
> 
> My assumptions agree with yours on the schema.org audience.
> 
> To that end, I think there is at least one clear use case for
> extensions, which I had mentioned on IRC #schemabibex after the first
> call and which was also raised in the last call if my reading & memory
> of the transcript is accurate. That is, similar to how
> scholar.google.com recognizes user IP address ranges and serves up
> links that lead directly to electronic resources licensed by the
> corresponding institution (assuming that you've gone through the
> process of exposing your electronic holdings in Scholar format and
told
> Scholar to go ahead and read them), I think the schema.org principle
> search engines (hereafter referred to as "SoPSE") would benefit from
> rewarding users who search via their search interface with links to
> instances of the requested resources at institutions associated with
> the current user.
> 
> Geo-IP could point directly at public libraries where the resource can
> be accessed rather than relying on the OCLC middleman, and the user's
> ability to access restricted resources (e.g. borrowing by GLAM
> institution members only) could be via some combination of IP range or
> explicit affiliations in the user's SoPSE account, so that
inaccessible
> resources wouldn't clutter search results. The explicit benefit to the
> SoPSE is that explicit affliliations strengthen signals that the SoPSE
> can then use to serve up relevant ads to that user, and of course the
> SoPSE can offer users the option of immediately purchasing a personal
> digital license for the resource via the SoPSE's Music / Books / other
> licensing & vending services.
> 
> A possible side benefit that PSEs would gain from having physical &
> electronic resources surfaced via a schema.org extension is that they
> might be able to evolve from the Google Scholar "export and refresh a
> list of resources in a specific format" model towards a more standard
> "crawl based on published sitemaps & microdata" model.
> 
> Again, if I recall the transcript of the last call correctly, DAIA was
> suggested as a potential model for extending schema.org to surface
> holdings information. I, for one, would be interested in working on
> defining and incorporating such an extension in Evergreen as a
testbed.
> 
> A second use case for extensions, then, would be to define some more
> object types that can be surfaced in schema.org beyond the current
list
> at the bottom of http://schema.org/CreativeWork - Jeff Young touched
on
> this in the kick-off call, if I recall correctly. For example, surely
> something like "Journal" or "Periodical" (perhaps reflecting a
> collection of http://schema.org/Article - similar to how
> http://schema.org/Blog represents a collection of
> http://schema.org/BlogPosting ) needs to be added...
> 
> Dan Scott
> 
> >>> On 11/5/2012 at 04:34 PM, Kevin Ford <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 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 vocabulary should be modified for those additional
> > consumers and, perhaps more importantly, how/why the schema.org
> > maintainers would accept those recommendations if they do not
benefit
> > the 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
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 04:13:09 UTC