Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Ed, thanks. I concur with your statement that I entered this group with 
the idea of getting a few mark-up elements that would make current 
library data more visible. I have no intention of creating another 
library-specific metadata scheme.

I feel like the majority of my energy in the group has been spent in 
countering proposals that I don't think are interesting or have 
priority. I would rather develop a consensus on a small group of 
proposals that are useful today and have high impact. There are some 
proposals in our wiki:

Object types:
   audiobook
   library
   library holdings

Vocabulary proposals
   identifier
   commonEndeavor
   content-carrier
   audiobook
   collection

These rarely show up on the meeting agendas. When someone adds one of 
them to the agenda (as I have done) they are given short shrift. I also 
think that other topics would come up if they had a chance of getting 
discussed. I hope that others will weigh in with suggestions and 
proposals, although the lack of response to the current ones may have 
served to discourage participation.

Note that the audiobook proposal is fully developed, with examples, and 
I have provided considerable background information for the library 
holdings one. I will task myself to turn that into a vocabulary 
proposal, with examples.

I have no interest in replicating BIBFRAME in schema.org. This is NOT 
the schemaBIBFRAME group.

kc



On 6/28/13 7:35 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> 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
> <Shlomo.Sanders@exlibrisgroup.com> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shlomo
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:46, "Dan Scott" <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> 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> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 16:01:53 UTC