RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

For example, Richard and I disagree about ISBNs. He thinks they should be treated as literals and I think they should be treated as Linked Data (with the letters "http://" out in front).

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: LAURA DAWSON [mailto:ljndawson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:42 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR); kcoyle@kcoyle.net; Ed Summers
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: 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 16:45:28 UTC