RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Indeed!  

 

Enough already with the vitriol and ascription of nefarious intent

and ulterior motives!  

 

A return to work on refinements aimed at tweaking schema.org

to better express library, archive, and museum resources would

be most welcome.

 

Jerry

 

From: Young,Jeff (OR) [mailto:jyoung@oclc.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 4:19 PM
To: Diane Hillmann
Cc: Tom Morris; Dan Scott; Ed Summers; Shlomo Sanders;
public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org

 

The confusion of blame and dishonesty in this thread is massive. Everyone
take a breath.

 

Jeff

Sent from my iPad


On Jun 28, 2013, at 7:14 PM, "Diane Hillmann" <metadata.maven@gmail.com>
wrote:

Folks: 

 

While not trying to exacerbate the already difficult conversation here (and
not having been as closely watching the bibex effort as Karen has), I'd like
to make a few comments that I hope won't be interpreted as hostile. I would
have to say that, based on my understanding, I believe Karen is correct in
chastising OCLC (primarily Richard, I believe) for stepping over the
boundaries of good process and honest dealing. Let me point out here that
Richard's title is "Evangelist", and it might be that he is acting as such
in this case, but that ought to be clear, if so. I've done some evangelism
in my time, though without the benefit of a title that makes my goals
explicit, so I'm hardly one to cast stones on that basis. There's a place
for evangelism, but not everywhere, all the time.

 

As for Jeff's label of "hostile" and his apparent surprise that anyone would
dare question the purity of OCLC's motives in this case, I can only offer a
virtual rolling of eyes.  Some of us are old enough to have witnessed some
questionable actions on OCLC's part (particularly at least two instances of
attempting to declare ownership of data contributed to OCLC), and we can
hardly be expected to deny that experience. 

 

Like Karen, I'm distressed that Jean Godby might be tarnished by this--the
report itself is a model of it's kind, well written and certainly up to
Jean's usual standard. Speaking for myself, I have one additional factual
quibble. Though happy to see any mention of RDA in the report, it states: 

 

"The proposed schemap: properties hasInstance and isInstanceOf associate
descriptions in the same hierarchy and are analogous to schema:Model.
Another proposed property, commonEndeavor, defines a relationship between
entities in different hierarchies whose content is derived from the same
creative act. In this example, commonEndeavor can be interpreted as a cover
term for an RDA relationship designator such as Motion Picture 

Adaptation Of, which might be more descriptive in this context.
Unfortunately, most RDF implementations of RDA relationships require a
domain and range explicitly defined as FRBR entities, so they are formally
incompatible with descriptions of schema:CreativeWork unless some technical
adjustments are made. The implementation of RDA described in the Open
Metadata Registry has this constraint, but so do many others."

 

The OMR contains both a FRBR constrained set of properties, but also an
unconstrained set, designed to be used in cases where FRBR constraints are
unwelcome, including in mapping situations.

 

Sadly, politics are not easily expunged from these conversations, primarily,
I think, because there are agendas aplenty floating barely beneath the
surface. I find that the occasional deep breath, meditative OM and
repetition of  "it's just another format" helps a lot.

 

Diane

 

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

 

Do you know if Freebase has a dump of their schema? I poked around on
https://developers.google.com/freebase/data, but couldn't find one.

 

It's included in the Freebase RDF dump, but not in an easily interpretable
way (ie as RDFS or OWL).  Probably the most accessible way to view it is
online at the web site.  You can either start with an instance like the
Little Mermaid and click on the associated types e.g.
https://www.freebase.com/book/book?schema= or you can start at a domain like
https://www.freebase.com/book?schema= and browse from there to the
associated types, properties, and instances.

 

Pretty much everything should be clickable so, in the schema view, you can
click on the target type of a property (ie its range in OWL terms) to see
what properties that type has.

 

One advantage, I find, of viewing the schema and instances together is that
you can see how the types are used, which ones are well populated and which
ones aren't, etc.

 

The other domains which might be of interest include:

 

https://www.freebase.com/media_common?schema=

https://www.freebase.com/film?schema=

https://www.freebase.com/music?schema=

https://www.freebase.com/visual_art?schema=

https://www.freebase.com/opera?schema=

 

Let me know if you have any questions.  I don't work for Google, but I'm
pretty familiar with both the Freebase schema and data.

 

Tom