Re: Reminder - next Schema Bib Extend Group meeting is on Tuesday

On 2/16/13 11:53 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:

>
> BTW You under estimate the importance for any source of [library] bib data
> to publish holding information by your comment about WorldCat.  The basic
> point about publishing structured data, in a form that the search engines
> commit to supporting, is so that users can discover what they need and where
> they can get it from.  Both individual libraries and aggregations have key
> parts to play in identifying a network of places where they can get, or gain
> access to, the resources they need.

Well, I don't see how what I said "under estimated" the importance of 
"bib data to publish holding information", and as you know well I know 
how linked data works - or at least should work. But without the holding 
information, the bib data is inert -- it doesn't get the user to the 
resources. So I'm concerned about the ability to get users to their 
local library for access. We need holdings data for that. CreativeWork + 
Book already gives us a good amount of bibliographic data to link on, 
and I'd say that in terms of priorities, holdings information should be 
very high on our list.

kc

>
> Anyway - lets discuss on Tuesday.
>
> ~Richard.
>
>
>
> On 16/02/2013 16:10, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard, I don't see any relationship between content/carrier and
>> holdings. My view of holdings is to mark up the elements that are common
>> to library holdings displays:
>>
>> location
>> call number
>> availability
>>
>> Then there is the question of serial holdings, which for the moment we
>> may need to treat simply as a display of "owns" which is already in the
>> Organization schema.
>>
>> I see this as a fairly simple markup for starters, although more could
>> be added later.
>>
>> I realize that holdings may not seem terribly relevant to OCLC since
>> WorldCat outsources that to the individual library catalogs that it
>> points to, but for most libraries I would contend that holdings is the
>> KEY information that they have to offer. I think it should be moved up
>> in our priority list.
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 2/16/13 7:45 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>> Karen,
>>>
>>> As the discussions on work-instance & commonEndeavor have past its peak
>>> recently, I agree that we should try to move on.
>>>
>>> In the spirit of "iterative approach to helping make schema.org better for
>>> bibliographic data -- instead of a waterfall model" as suggested by Ed
>>> recently - I believe that they should be moved to a state of final agreement
>>> and preparation for proposal to public-vocabs.
>>>
>>> Content-carrier is a little different as there are some fundamental
>>> modelling approaches that we are discussing here that I think will influence
>>> how we deal with holdings - if we are to be consistent. What might be called
>>> the additionalType issue needs some consensus around it.
>>>
>>> By taking some leads from WebPage, Comics, etc., I agree that collection
>>> 'should' not be too controversial.
>>>
>>> It is issues such as these I was hoping to surface in the ' Timescale for
>>> submissions to public_vocabs' agenda item.
>>>
>>> ~Richard.
>>>
>>> On 16/02/2013 14:50, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I looked at the agenda, and I would like to suggest putting
>>>> work-instance, commonEndeavor, and content-carrier on the back burner,
>>>> but add Library Holdings, which I think is one of the key bits of
>>>> missing information that we need to address. I also want to say that I
>>>> think that "collection" is a no-brainer and we shouldn't have to spend
>>>> much time on it.
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/13 6:29 AM, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Just a reminder that our February meeting is on Tuesday, usual time,
>>>>>       joining details here:
>>>>>
>>>>>       _http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Meet_20130219
>>>>>       _
>>>>>       Hear you there.
>>>>>
>>>>>       ~Richard.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

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

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:33:28 UTC