- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:59:33 -0700
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- CC: Thomas Adamich <vls@tusco.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>, "Godby,Jean" <godby@oclc.org>
Jeff, the paper does not make clear the difference between OCLC's intentions and the decisions of the group. "... with extensions proposed..." sounds like the group has proposed extensions like productontology. No where does it say that OCLC endorses productontology but the group has not. That needs to be made clear because there are implications throughout the paper that the group has made decisions or is in agreement on topics that have not be discussed as a group. kc On 6/27/13 1:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > This could probably be reworded to be clearer, but "a model being explored by OCLC with extensions proposed by Schema Bib Extend" should not be misconstrued as "a model being proposed by SchemaBibEx". > > The fact that search engines understand http://www.productontology.org/ and that OCLC has chosen to include those terms in the model we are exploring doesn't imply that the SchemaBibEx group has approved it. > > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] >> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:36 PM >> To: Thomas Adamich >> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org >> Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org >> >> Tom, it isn't a question of the relationship between schema, OCLC and >> BIBFRAME - there is no formal relationship, but that's not uncommon in >> the standards world. The question is that OCLC has written a document >> that purports to represent the thinking of this group. The introduction >> states: >> >> "This document describes a proposed alignment between BIBFRAME and a >> model being explored by OCLC with extensions proposed by the Schema Bib >> Extend project, a W3C-sponsored community group tasked with adapting >> Schema.org to the description of library resources. The key result is >> that the two efforts are complementary except for some common >> vocabulary required for the most important entities and relationships." >> >> The problem is that all of the ideas in the document are represented as >> having been proposed by the bibex group. In fact, the only proposals by >> the bibex group are Citations (move) and Collections. Other topics, >> like the use of productontology (and we are said to "consider the >> redundancies to be a temporary nuisance that will be addressed in a >> future verison" p. 16) We also are said to be developing a "new model" >> that represents the FRBR hierarchy. (p. 11) I think some of us prefer >> that a FRBR hierarchy is NOT imposed on schema.org. >> >> kc >> >> >> >> On Thu Jun 27 12:22:58 2013, Thomas Adamich wrote: >>> 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 <mailto:vls@tusco.net> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net >>> >>> To: >>> "WallisRichard" <richard.wallis@oclc.org> >>> Cc: >>> "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <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" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> 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 >>> >> schema.org, 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 >> >> -- >> 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
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 20:59:57 UTC