RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

..So it's safe to say that any contextual relationship functions
enabled by adding FRBR/Holdings would be redundant?
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: "YoungJeff (OR)" 
To:"Ed Summers" , "Shlomo Sanders" 
Cc:"Dan Scott" , "public-schemabibex@w3.org" 
Sent:Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:44:32 +0000
Subject:RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

 It's pointless to add FRBR/Holdings to Schema.org because they
already have the critical components built-in to their
schema:Product/schema:Offer branch. It's presumably fair to say that
most SchemaBibEx members don’t want to look at it that way, but
there it is.

 Jeff

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: ed.summers@gmail.com [mailto:ed.summers@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of
 > Ed Summers
 > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:36 AM
 > To: Shlomo Sanders
 > Cc: Dan Scott; public-schemabibex@w3.org
 > Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org
 > 
 > Thanks for sharing this Karen. I haven't read the article, and am
 > somewhat unlikely to now, but I was personally never interested
much in
 > FRBRizing schema.org. I was (and continue to be) interested in
adding
 > whatever small bits we need to schema.org to make it more useful to
 > applications and services we want to build. If schemabibex could
 > provide input to Google and other search engines to display
 > bibliographic information better in search results that would be
great.
 > It also seems like tools like Google Scholar would be a fair bit
more
 > useful with a bit of schema.org mixed into their HTML. But I also
think
 > there is also an opportunity for smaller groups (dpla, europeana,
etc)
 > to use schema.org metadata expressed in web pages for providing
views
 > onto pockets of cultural heritage material on the Web
 > 
 > I guess I'm jaded at this point, but the library and the linked
data
 > communities seem far too fixated on getting the metadata just right
for
 > some future applications to use, instead of building applications
that
 > use what we already have, using existing standards. I always hoped
that
 > schema-bibex would be a place to share ideas about how we wanted to
use
 > the data in our systems and services, and figure out what
vocabulary
 > bits we needed to add to make them better. It seems like too much
 > energy goes into making new standards, that are associated with
 > particular institutions, and that little energy is left for the
work of
 > actually putting the data to use.
 > 
 > //Ed
 > 
 > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Shlomo Sanders
 >  wrote:
 > > +1
 > >
 > > Thanks,
 > > Shlomo
 > >
 > > Sent from my iPad
 > >
 > > On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:46, "Dan Scott"  wrote:
 > >
 > > Thanks Karen. I generally concur with your reaction (although I
have
 > > to admit that for the first time in my life I was getting hung up
on
 > > the _terrible_ kerning of the font in the PDF, so had been
reading
 > > through it rather slowly).
 > >
 > > I was surprised by many of the statements in the paper about the
 > > direction, decisions, thoughts, and beliefs of the Schema BibEx
 > group.
 > > Perhaps if all (or most) of those statements were modified to say
 > they
 > > were the direction, decisions, thoughts, beliefs "of the OCLC
 > > employees currently participating in the Schema BibEx community"
that
 > > would be more acceptable--certainly closer to the truth.
 > >
 > > I very much value the opinions (& Richard's leadership) of the
OCLC
 > > participants in this group, but cannot endorse this paper as an
 > > accurate reflection of the group's positions, direction, etc as a
 > > whole, particularly with respect to BIBFRAME.
 > >
 > >
 > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Karen Coyle 
 > wrote:
 > >>
 > >> 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 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

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