Re: An initial proposal for bib.schema.org

> On 17 Apr 2015, at 05:59, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I'd hate to see it become an unorganized dumping ground for a couple of centuries of cataloging cruft.  The fact that libraries lend toys and "kits" (and museum passes and tools and all manner of other stuff) doesn't make them creative works or in any way bibliographic.  Focus on the bibliographic please.
An unsurprising +1 to this from me…

> 
> In a similar vein, I hope "Meeting" isn't on the list because someone's going to propose that a meeting can author a creative work.
This particular point hadn’t occurred to me, but I think it points to an issue with the overall Extension proposal. To give these things proper consideration I think we need more information. I’m trying to think through what I’d want to see. I think something like:

* Gap identified in current schema.org - what is it that we need to do that isn’t currently supported
* Why it is important to fill the identified gap - why the extension is needed
* How proposed type/property fills that gap
* Example of how type/property would be used in relation to the gap

I think this would allow us to focus discussion on:

* Do we agree there is a gap and if not how would current schema.org be used (and counter arguments etc.)
* Do we agree that it is important to fill the identified gap
* Alternative proposals for filling the identified gap
* Counter examples showing how other approaches might work

>   Tradition doesn't make it right.
I think there is a line to walk here. I totally agree that tradition doesn’t make something right. However, I also think that schema.org has tried to be pragmatic in terms of what can be achieved based on existing data and markup and I think we need to do the same in this extension. If we define an approach that we can’t implement from current data then I think this is as much of a problem as if we define an approach which includes all the ‘cataloguing cruft’.

Tradition doesn’t make it right, but it may end up forcing certain compromises on us. I’m OK with that I think.

Owen