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

Can't disagree with anything you say. 

The [under estimation] point I was clumsily trying to make was that holdings information is important at all levels - local, consortium, national, international, global and cross-domain. 

Without availability information, we may as well just put up a 'like' button. 

Without the interconnection between individual libraries and the aggregation hubs, we will just be individuals shouting in the wilderness. 

~Richard


On 16 Feb 2013, at 20:33, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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 20:54:32 UTC