RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Dan,

> > 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:
> 
> At this point, I would avoid saying anything about what most
> SchemaBibEx members want or don't want! Touchy subject area :)

I noticed that. :-)

> I volunteered to experiment with modelling library holdings because I'm
> interested in improving Evergreen's schema.org integration - and your
> suggestion of using Product/Offer seems workable, so I'm going to give
> that a shot.
> 
> Some of my (still half-formed) thoughts on FRBR in schema.org:
> 
> During the last call, I proposed (via chat) that Freebase's adaptedWork
> / adaptedFrom properties might make more sense than the proposed
> hasInstance / isInstanceOf for expressing relationships between
> CreativeWorks.

I like adaptedFrom and it would work as an alternative for some of the "hasInstance/isInstanceOf" cases. (I don't like the hasInstance/isInstanceOf proposal, so I'm currently using skos:broader/narrower for this purpose instead.) I would argue against proposing inverse properties since Schema.org doesn't currently handle them very well.

> I'm not sure we really need a Platonic ideal / FRBR Work
> in schema.org; it seems to be a potential rat hole that would be better
> avoided, as the abstract "Work" is subject to revisionism and
> argumentation for little benefit to the linked data effort.

I agree.

Jeff

> For example: would the abstract CreativeWork for "The Little Mermaid"
> be the Disney creation? Surely not; it would be the Hans Christian
> Andersen work on which the Disney story was based, but it would not be
> the English translation; it would be "Den lille havfrue" - but wait,
> Andersen's work doesn't even include "Ariel" as a character's name, and
> surely the vast majority of people looking for "The Little Mermaid"
> actually want the Disney films / books / tv series / video games /
> figurines / stickers / whatever... and perhaps at some point in the
> future we will discover that Andersen's work was based on a previously
> existing oral tale. Do we even want to try to have to express that, and
> maintain that, when it seems much better suited to the realm of
> historical literature academics & their research papers & books &
> conference proceedings?
> 
> In short, I don't think an abstract CreativeWork and all of the FRBR
> Work baggage that would carry offers significant benefits to our
> efforts. I, for one, would be happy to link off to, say, the wikipedia
> page on "The Little Mermaid" (either
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(1989_film) or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(franchise) or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(disambiguation)) or
> their Freebase equivalents, and let the linked data lead interested
> parties to explore the connections and arguments further.
> 
> Dan
> 
> P.S. I apologize for the half-formedness of these thoughts; I'm
> starting a sabbatical next week, and rather amusingly back in August
> 2012 part of my sabbatical proposal was to work on expressing library
> system metadata in schema.org and structured data vocabularies in
> general... so the timing of this group forming was in some ways
> horrible (as I have been unable to commit the time that it deserved),
> but now I can start to put my back into it in a serious way and hope to
> be able to contribute both more concretely (by way of continuing
> implementations of the group's proposals in Evergreen with real library
> data) as well as more deeply (by being able to focus on the subject
> matter at more length).

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 16:08:57 UTC