Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Jeff, could you clarify what you mean by "baked-in identifier goodness"? I
think I know what you mean but I don't want to jump to conclusions.

On 6/28/13 12:39 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

>Karen,
>
>Speaking only for myself...
>
>Gaining consensus on priorities does seem to be taking a long time, but
>some of the things on your list can be accounted for:
>
>http://schema.org/Library
>http://schema.org/IndividualProduct (FRBR Item)
>http://schema.org/SomeProducts and/or perhaps http://schema.org/Offer
>(Holdings)
>http://schema.org/ProductModel (W/E/M) with http://schema.org/model to
>relate them vertically
>
>I think we agreed to move the "Collection" proposal forward. I assume
>it's in the pipeline somewhere.
>
>I agree that audiobook is surprising in its absence. I've been using
>http://www.productontology.org/id/AudioBook in its place, but as you
>suggest this doesn't account for some useful properties.
>
>I agree there is a surprising gap in Schema.org when it comes to
>content-carrier. I suspect this argument would be more compelling if we
>approached it from a Product perspective. For example, I want to buy a
>*leather* coat or a *large-print* book.
>
>I know that Richard has a lot of sympathy for Identifiers, but given the
>baked-in identifier goodness of Linked Data I tend to find the notion
>quite strange. 
>
>Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:01 PM
>> To: Ed Summers
>> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
>> Subject: 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 16:42:50 UTC