Re: Audience for Schema Bib extension

No problem agreeing that search engines are going to be the main and key direct consumer of schema.org markup, although in terms of describing the outcomes we want to support I'd focus on the 'searcher' rather than the search engine.

I also support the idea of expressing library holding/availability information in order to support a use case of 'for a given thing, enable search engines to present context dependent information on the availability of that thing to the searcher'. I think that we ought to look at this holistically and suspect that the answer is not just about expressing library holdings (print and electronic) but other kinds of availability as well.
 
Jeff mentions OpenURL, and I think we are looking at a verision of the Appropriate Copy problem here. I also think 'Appropriate Copy' has more relevance in the non-library world now, than when OpenURL was designed. For example - knowing that I can access a film via my existing NetFlix subscription is just as valid an outcome as knowing that I can buy it from Amazon or borrow it from my local library. See also the Kindle Lending Library, Spotify, Pandora, etc. etc.

This suggests to me two things we would need to be able to describe:

What a service has to offer (in the library world 'holdings')
The characteristics of those that can typically make use of the service (whether based on geo, IP range, personal subscription, etc.)

I like that these feel less niche than 'expressing library holdings'.

I've used DAIA before and like it's simplicity for representing item availability. However I also encountered some problems in that it didn't differentiate between print and electronic availability - I documented these issues at http://blogs.oucs.ox.ac.uk/sirlouie/2011/04/06/juice-and-daia-and-sakai-and-primo/ and there are also comments from Uwe Reh who was involved in the development of DAIA (along with Jakob Voss) (as an aside that blog covers the whole project and I wonder if it provides an example of another 'audience' for this kind of information)

The way I've expressed requirements above feels like there is bound to be some overlap with GoodRelations as well.

Does this chime with anyone else?

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 6 Nov 2012, at 02:30, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

> I agree that “Schema Bib extension” should focus on “search engines” as the “audience”. I especially like the POV that Bowker (and other parties) presumably bring to the table that “books” (and other forms of “manifestation”) are identifiable products that bridge world views. These overlaps will become even stronger if/when Schema.org is formally integrated/mapped with GoodRelations.
>  
> I would suggest these mappings to bridge FRBR and Schema/GoodRelations:
>  
> frbr:Manifestation rdfs:subClassOf gr:SomeItems .
> frbr:Item rdfs:subClassOf gr:Individual .
>  
> Jeff
>  
> From: Dawson, Laura [mailto:Laura.Dawson@bowker.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 5:02 PM
> To: Kevin Ford
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Audience for Schema Bib extension
>  
> 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> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Laura Dawson
> Product Manager, Identifiers
> Bowker
> 908-219-0082
> 917-770-6641
> laura.dawson@bowker.com
>  
>