Re: Scope of this group's work

Jeff, I wonder if we aren't talking about different things. The instance 
data will be in an open world, and I don't think anything about 
schema.org is contrary to that. This group, however, is developing 
recommendations for enhancements or additions to schema.org. There 
already IS a creative work schema, a person schema, a book schema, etc., 
in schema.org. This is how "they" have chosen to organize the ontology. 
This organization is presumably a convenience for metadata developers 
looking for properties or thinking about what properties might be 
missing. We could develop a whole new set of properties for library 
data, or we could recommend new properties within the structure of 
entities already present. If we choose the latter then we will have to 
discuss "creative work schema" and "person schema", but this should have 
no bearing on how the properties are used in instance data.

Does that make sense?

kc

On 11/16/12 9:36 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> I agree with Jerry that we should be erasing boundaries. Libraries may
> continue to focus on describing creative works and closely-related
> entities, but the web in which those entities are involved extends far
> beyond.
>
> That’s why I’m concerned about the perpetuation of phrases like
> “creative work schema” and “particular sub-schema”.
>
> A closed-world record by any other name would stink as bad.
>
> Jeff
>
> *From:*Jerry Persons [mailto:jpersons@stanford.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:14 PM
> *To:* public-schemabibex@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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 ] 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 ]
>
> 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
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Saturday, 17 November 2012 17:54:20 UTC