RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

I think that Schema.org is lacking a lot of useful object properties between schema:CreativeWorks, but I don’t think the domain/range of those object properties need to be tightly bound to FRBR WEMI classes.

Jeff

From: Thomas Adamich [mailto:vls@tusco.net]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Young,Jeff (OR); Ed Summers; Shlomo Sanders
Cc: Dan Scott; public-schemabibex@w3.org; sam@mitinet.com
Subject: 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<mailto:vls@tusco.net>


----- Original Message -----
From:
"YoungJeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>

To:
"Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com<mailto:ehs@pobox.com>>, "Shlomo Sanders" <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com<mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>>
Cc:
"Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com<mailto:denials@gmail.com>>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>" <public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto: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 schemaorg 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
> <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com<mailto:Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com>> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shlomo
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:46, "Dan Scott" <denials@gmail.com<mailto:denials@gmail.com>> 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 <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
> 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" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto: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<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net

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

> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >> skype: kcoylenet
> >>
> >
> >
>


________________________________
Email sent using webmail from Omnicity