Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Ahhhh, got it. Yes, I haven't made up my mind myself (after thinking a lot
about this for thirteen months), but so long as ISBNs are a requirement in
some fashion, Bowker's happy. ;)

On 6/28/13 12:44 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

>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 16:58:09 UTC