RE: An initial proposal for bib.schema.org

I concur with Corey here: if we want to be sure this is useful to the archival community, we need to have proper participation from that community. I've worked with a number of archivists and their approach to description is quite different from the "traditional" (for want of a better word) bibliographic approach.
Rob
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:52:41 -0400
From: corey.harper@nyu.edu
To: owen@ostephens.com
CC: Richard.Wallis@oclc.org; public-schemabibex@w3.org
Subject: Re: An initial proposal for bib.schema.org

Dear Richard, Owen, et al.,
I'd also like to know more about the proposed timeline for discussion here. I'm particularly concerned about the "Archive Containers/Collection" set in Richard's original message. If I remember correctly, the original schema bib group didn't address archival metadata, and there weren't any archivists engaged in the conversation. I think we need to think very carefully about extending the bib extensions into another -- albeit related -- domain without appropriate representation from that group. It was hard enough reaching consensus on the bibliographic stuff the first time around.
I suspect this comment is also related to the discussion of Toys and Kits going on in other threads, as those types are largely used in cataloging for special collections & archives. 
A better sense of timing would be useful, as I think I'd like to start pointing some of my archives metadata colleagues to this thread.
Thanks,-Corey
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:14 AM, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
Thanks Richard,
While I understand that having something in bib.schema.org doesn’t preclude their use elsewhere, we clearly don’t want to do something that causes problems further down the line or leads libraries to describe materials in a way that is different to others using schema.org. If we had simply approached ‘comics’ as we describe them in libraries we would have ended up with something much poorer than what we’ve actually got through the work of Dan and others.
I’m not that keen on an approach that simply takes what libraries currently do and converts it into schema.org - I still feel if this is ‘bib’ schema it should focus on that aspect. Otherwise we should be talking about ‘lib’ schema instead.
Anyway, would it be possible for you to lay out a proposed timetable for discussion and agreement/publication of these elements and properties?
I’m going to keep going on my concerns about Toy and Kit in a different thread…
Owen

Owen StephensOwen Stephens ConsultingWeb: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936


On 15 Apr 2015, at 17:04, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:





Hi Owen,



You are right to identify the slightly rushed element of this proposal as we are hoping to take advantage of an imminent release.  



To that end the set of obvious initial candidates for discussion - most of 
BiblioGaph.net and the comics proposal - were slimed down by Dan Scott and me into a less controversial sub-set.  Neither of us are precious about any of these.  



The General Bibliographic Types & Properties all came into this proposal from the
BibloGraph.net vocabulary, designed as an open extension to
Schema.org.  The need for the types and properties within it came from analysing the bibliographic descriptions within
WorldCat.org and therefore by inference information that librarians needed to capture for their organisations and collections.



Within these there are a few new CreativeWork subtypes.  Some are fairly obvious (Newspaper, Atlas, MusicScore, Thesis,  Chapter) some less obvious (Kit, Toy).  In support of Kit & Toy I would say they are both used in bibliographic description - for example
 in toy collections/libraries in the same way as kits [I’m sure there could be a better word] of materials are often catalogued and circulated by libraries.  You are right to suggest that they may well be applicable within other domains, but being in
bib.schema.org does not preclude their use elsewhere or promoting to the core at a later date.



Meeting, Agent, & PublicationSeries, although not discussed in this group have well understood application in describing relationships and resources in the bibliographic domain.



The MapCategoryType:CartographicMap does not seek to define a Cartographic as such.  It just makes available the ability to differentiate one from Transit Maps and Seat Maps.






The archive containers types and properties are new, and address the description of how items in an archive are contained as against the semantic description of those items.  The Collection type although of relevance to archives is equally applicable to
 library and other collections.



What is missing, except for the comic related proposals, are examples to go with the proposals that we need to work on.





~Richard




On 15 Apr 2015, at 16:20, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:




Richard,



I feel like breaking down this list further into types and properties would be useful for discussion? 
Also pointers to any existing work/discussions on each type/property? Or a summary for each thing. I know comics have been discussed extensively and don’t want to re-hash anything there. On the otherhand some of these are completely new and I
 think deserve a bit more consideration before we put them forward.



My overarching concern is that we have a list of ‘types’ that are based on how we currently break things down in libraries, rather than with specific use cases in mind. For example Kit might be better part of a learning materials extension, Toy
 as part of products, and it feels like ‘cartographic materials’ are probably an area all to themselves.



I don’t necessarily object to these being part of a bib extension (certainly ‘atlas’ fits clearly into scope), but some of this feels a bit rushed unless there is discussion I’ve missed?



Owen 






Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting

Web: http://www.ostephens.com

Email: owen@ostephens.com

Telephone: 0121 288 6936





On 14 Apr 2015, at 22:26, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:




Hi all,



A few weeks back we discussed how this group or some of its members could participate as a bibliographic domain group to propose and review a bibliographic extension to schema.org with the current working
 name of bib.schema.org.



Since then I have been liaising with Dan Brickley and others in the main Schema.org group who have been working to establish the hosting software that enables the extension capability.  This work is now
 close to being ready for release.  Dan has indicated that this provides an excellent opportunity for a bibliographic extension to be one of, if not the first, enabled and released in this way.  In preparation for this, Dan Scott and I have put together a candidate
 set of types and properties that could constitute an initial bib extension release, which this email introduces.



There are many potential candidates for new/enhanced types and properties which the finessing and accepting of which would need to be the subject of some in depth discussion within this group.  To take advantage of the opportunity to release along
 with the capability release, however, we need to agree a starting subset fairly quickly.  To that end Dan and I have drawn up this initial (1.0) proposal consisting of what we believe to be things that are fairly noncontroversial. 



I list the proposed types and properties below with links to their representation in a development version of the Schema.org site.  They are in three independent groups of proposals, for general bibliographic
 markup; some helpful things for the physical structure of archives & basic collections; and for comics.  



We can accept/reject either individual types and properties, or a whole group, because we need to explore things in more depth and defer things to a later release.  I would hope though that fairly quickly we could come to at least a subset of
 these as an initial release.



A reminder that Dan Brickley is still working on the software capable of handling extensions so please view the content more than how it currently displays.



General Bibliographic Types & Properties


AgentAtlasChapterGlobeKitMeetingNewspaperMusicScorePublicationSeriesThesisToyBookFormatType:AudioBookBookFormatType:LargePrintBookBookFormatType:PrintBookMapCategoryType:CartographicMapinSupportOftranslationOfWorktranslatorworkTranslation




Archive Containers/Collection


BoxContainerCollectionContainerFolderContainerShelfcontainscontainedIn




Comics


ComicIssueComicSeriesComicStoryCoverArtComicCoverArtBookFormatType:GraphicNovelartistcoloristinkerletterer pencilerpublisherImprintvariantCover




I look forward to comments.



~Richard.


















-- 
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479
corey.harper@nyu.edu