Re: Audience for Schema Bib extension

On 11/6/12 1:48 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
> No problem agreeing that search engines are going to be the main and key
> direct consumer of schema.org <http://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.

Amen.


> 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'.

Yes, Owen, chimes in very well.

Given that schema.org is often about products and availability, it seems 
that we need to decide whether/where library "products and availability" 
are inherently different. schema.org/Offer has ItemAvailability with 
open-ended (typical of schema.org) values. It also has "/LocalBusiness" 
for geo-locating those entities making offers.

Off the top of my head, the use case of physical library holdings does 
not vary greatly from the product view, although we are assuming a 
mechanism that relates the user's location to the location AND item 
availability that may not currently exist. To get this information into 
a web page where it will be read by a search engine there needs to be a 
background function that places it there.

The case of electronic holdings (perhaps a kind of web-wide OpenURL) 
(btw, which is already in the use case on the wiki) does seem to be 
different because it isn't a simple (?) matter of geo-location but 
requires a "membership"-type concept related to the individual. That, 
too, may well have broader utilization than just libraries, so I agree 
that we should design our requests for extension in institution and 
event neutral terms.

kc


>
> 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 <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
> On 6 Nov 2012, at 02:30, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org
> <mailto: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/whenSchema.org
>> <http://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 <http://bowker.com>]
>> *Sent:*Monday, November 05, 2012 5:02 PM
>> *To:*Kevin Ford
>> *Cc:*public-schemabibex@w3.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto:kefo@3windmills.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> In the interest of moving this along, is it possible for us to
>> identify the audience for theschema.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
>> theschema.org <http://schema.org>vocabulary should be modified for
>> those additional consumers and, perhaps more importantly, how/why
>> theschema.org <http://schema.org>maintainers would accept those
>> recommendations if they do not benefit theschema.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 Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:59:14 UTC