Re: Scope of this group's work

Karen,

 

>From your notes:

"There doesn't seem to be the structure in schema.org to further describe a
person within a creative work schema"

 

My point is that it doesn't matter that one cannot further describe a person
within a particular sub-schema ... 

it matters that within the overall framework that is schema.org (aka herein
this and all those other  "graph thangs") there are multitudinous ways to
represent info about a person, all of which info is of value in populating
the graph about an individual if we are in fact about the business of
plugging all of what libraries know about people and things into the
web-wide, well-structured connections that are emerging as linked data.  

 

I tried to suggest to some extent the scope of the much broader context we
need to absorb in the case study example for Stephen Jay Gould [
<http://goo.gl/p1QOq> http://goo.gl/p1QOq ] wherein a reader approaching
Gould via his "creative work" persona might be equally or even better served
by having extensive access to other facets of Gould's life and his
relationships with roles, institutions, people, events, organizations, etc.

 

Yes, I understand we are focused here on trying to improve the quality of
schema.org's ability to represent bibliographic entities and the people and
organizations and topics associated with them.

I worry that too often, such discussions devolve into how what we're doing
is going to feed the very next generation of library applications.  All to
the good of course, but what would we lose by thinking outside the "library"
and the "application" box just a bit ... 

CRIG said it best some time ago:

                "The coolest thing to do with your data will be thought of
by someone else"  [  <http://goo.gl/Jqnse> http://goo.gl/Jqnse ]

 

My plea is simply that the 'library community" do everything possible to get
"what it knows" out into the web-wide fabric of structured data ... whether
or not it fits within the bounds of a particular (in this case
bibliographically tuned) schema.

 

A plea which is admittedly in itself reaching somewhat beyond topical
boundaries of "make bib info better in schema.org", but one that might well
generate an innovation or three (or a community or four of stakeholders as
Adrian suggests) in how we approach our objective.

 

Best,

Jerry