Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Thanks, Karen, for your analysis and efforts.  I agree 100% that
attributions should not be made regarding relationships which do not
exist (i.e. between schema bibex, OCLC, and BIBFRAME).  What do you
feel would be the best expression of schema bibex's relationship to
both groups in this context?
Thanks again for sharing your knowledge with us.
Tom 

	Tom Adamich, MLS 

	President 

	Visiting Librarian Service 

	P.O. Box 932 

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663 

	330-364-4410 

	vls@tusco.net [1] 

----- Original Message -----
From: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
To:"WallisRichard" 
Cc:"public-schemabibex@w3.org" 
Sent:Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:13:32 -0700
Subject:Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

 Richard, now that I've gotten further along in reading this, I think 
 that "posting it to the list" is the least that you should have done.

 This document, written by OCLC and not vetted by this list,
attributes 
 to the schema bibex group a number of decisions and thoughts that I
do 
 not recognize. It uses "we" to mean not OCLC but the bibex group. I 
 find this more than just problematic - this is at least arrogant and 
 possibly dishonest. I now find decisions attributed to this group
that 
 I cannot condone, yet as a member of the group one could infer that 
 they are mine as well.

 OCLC cannot speak for this group, and it definitely cannot speak for 
 this group in a document that this group did not even see. Godby
stated 
 that this would be presented at the BIBFRAME session at ALA. If it is

 presented as the thoughts of the bibex group and not OCLC, you should

 be ashamed.

 Here are just a few examples from the document:

 "This shift in focus implies a decision by the SchemaBibEx community
to 
 defer to the important standards initiatives of the library
community, 
 including BIBFRAME, to develop vocabulary required for detailed 
 descriptions of library resources." p. 11 - I do not think we have 
 discussed this at all. In fact, we haven't really discussed the 
 relationship of schema.org and BIBFRAME in any detail, and I'm not
sure 
 it is necessarily appropriate for us to do so in this forum. There
may 
 be some folks on the group who aren't even paying attention to 
 BIBFRAME, but who wish to mark up bibliographic displays unrelated to

 libraries.

 "Though the BIBFRAME initiative needs to develop its own policy with 
 regard to the Product Types Ontology, the SchemaBibEx community sees 
 little need to define and maintain a competing vocabulary for content

 types and carriers." p. 17 - Again, a decision that I do not recall. 
 Also, AFAIK, no one except Jeff has promoted the use of the product 
 types ontology, and we haven't discussed its use in any detail in the

 group.

 "The SchemaBIBEx community is exploring the possiblity that 
 schema:IndividualProduct ... corresponds reasonably well to the 
 definition of FRBR Item." p. 17 - We haven't really touched on the
item 
 level yet. This is one idea, but it is premature to attribute this 
 thinking to the group.

 "To move forward, two issues must be resolved. First, we must reach 
 agreement on working definitions of key concepts. Then we must solve 
 the technical problem of mismatched expectations about domain and
range 
 values..." p. 18 - I object to the use of "we" here because it is 
 talking about the work of the SchemaBibEx group, not OCLC. This
implies 
 that the document is coming from the bibex group, not OCLC. That is
not 
 true.

 Sorry for the blunt talk, but this document must be re-written to 
 reflect that it is the thoughts and opinions of OCLC, not the bibex 
 group. And that absolutely must be made clear at ALA.

 kc

 On Thu Jun 27 10:41:15 2013, Wallis,Richard wrote:
 > Thanks Karen for posting this to the list. Travelling got in the
way of
 > me ensuring that it was published here and on the BIBFRAME list at
about
 > the same time.
 >
 > ~Richard.
 >
 > On 27/06/2013 11:59, "Karen Coyle"  wrote:
 >
 >> All,
 >>
 >> If you are on the BIBFRAME list you will have seen a message from
Jean
 >> Godby with a link to her paper:
 >>
 >> Godby, Carol Jean. 2013. The Relationship between BIBFRAME and the
 >> Schema.org ŒBib Extensions¹ Model: A Working Paper. Dublin,
Ohio: OCLC
 >> Research.
 >>
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/2013-05
 >> .pdf.
 >>
 >> This 41 page(!) paper is an excellent analysis of the possible
 >> relationship between BIBFRAME and schema.org This is a topic
which we
 >> have not discussed directly in this group, and I would like to
propose
 >> that we could merge this discussion with our consideration of
 >> "instanceOf" and "has Instance" -- which we decided to push to
this list
 >> at the end of our last webex meeting on Tuesday, June 25.
 >>
 >> The paper presents the alignment of schema.org and FRBR as a
primary
 >> goal of this group [1] I take exception to that, as may others.
But I
 >> believe that the underlying question is the coordination of
BIBFRAME and
 >> schemaorg, and that should be discussed first. There are obvious
 >> benefits to the library community to bringing these two into
alignment,
 >> but we should also discuss whether we can do so without silo-ing
library
 >> data once again.
 >>
 >> kc
 >>
 >> [1] "The main objective of the redesign is to improve the
representation
 >> of the FRBR hierarchy using concepts already defined in
Schema.org.
 >> Since the application of the FRBR hierarchy requires the
association of
 >> descriptions with differing degrees of abstraction, the
schemaBibEx
 >> community has also proposed the properties hasInstance and
isInstanceOf,
 >> whose semantics resemble the BIBFRAME properties with the same
names."
 >> (Godby, p. 11)
 >> --
 >> Karen Coyle
 >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
 >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
 >> m: 1-510-435-8234
 >> skype: kcoylenet
 >>
 >>
 >
 >
 >

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

-------------------------
Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

Links:
------
[1] mailto:vls@tusco.net