- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:41:10 +0000
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- CC: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, "Vizine-Goetz,Diane" <vizine@oclc.org>
On 29/11/2012 15:01, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > From the Wiki home page for this group: > > "The mission of this group is to discuss and prepare proposal(s) for > extending Schema.org schemas for the improved representation of > bibliographic information markup and sharing." > > Richard, is there a list of the properties that OCLC found necessary in > creating its schema.org implementation? That might be a place to start. OCLC came up with the 'Library' ontology as a provisional extension for the WorldCat work: http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/library/ In retrospect we probably should not have created a load of classes for carrier types - a more pragmatic solution may be found by making use of Schema's external enumerations <http://blog.schema.org/2012/05/schemaorg-markup-for-external-lists.html> Removing those from the list the number of object properties <http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/library/#objectproperties> and data properties <http://www.essepuntato.it/lode/http://purl.org/library/#dataproperties> is very short. > > However, anything we do should be relevant within the context of some > scenario, so I suggest that we discuss scenarios [1] and the areas for > discussion [2], which will inform our proposal for extending schema.org. > > We have determined that we can address the "simple string" case as well > as the "URI" case. This may be relevant in terms of identification of > properties. Should we, at least initially, assume a MARC record as the > source of data? Or would that be too limiting? I would suggest that we don't constrain our thinking to any [currently held] record format - Marc/RDA/Onyx etc. But consider the things we describe in those formats - Books, Articles, Journals, Theses, and their associated People, Organisations, Places, Concepts, Events, and Annotations. If it makes sense to describe the colour of paper used for a book, the fact that there is no Marc tag for it should not prevent us from recommending it. ([hopefully] fictitious example, not a basis for a new email thread ;-) It is then up to us to back up such a recommendation with examples and recipes of how you would use that data (in current formats if you have it) and represent it in Schema. > > kc > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases > [2] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Areas_for_Discussion
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 15:42:35 UTC