Re: An initial proposal for bib.schema.org

[snip]

Hi all! (I joined the CG ... will send a real proper intro separately)

My advice for this would be to aim for modest size and rough consensus
with this first extension. Through going through this currently
under-documented process we are all learning a lot, and the idea is
that extensions can start to take on more of a life of their own. So
subsequent updates and additions are entirely feasible - that's pretty
much the point really!

The kinds of issues I think we ought to prioritise are fairly dull
questions like:

For the specific term name proposed: "are there non-biblio / culturage
heritage / GLAM uses of that word that might cause confusion? Is the
term a candidate for a broader definition? Could it be given a more
scoped name to avoid confusion?"

Schema.org remains, despite this extension mechanism, a flat
namespace. So if you use a word like "Globe" or "Toy" it is not
implicitly scoped to bib:, but "uses up" the URI
http://schema.org/Toy. This is a delicate balancing act, and it is
sorely tempting to sneak namespacing-like mechanisms in through the
back door, e.g. by prefacing terms ("BibToy", "BibGlobe" etc.). One of
the purposes of moving schema.org into a W3C CG was to create a venue
to talk through these cross-domain issues.

As Richard has mentioned we also hope to get a new and major release
out towards the end of this month. Given the ambitious schedule I
would suggest therefore keeping the size of bib: initially modest, so
we can work through the non-modeling issues around naming and cross
domain. Subsequently I'd hope we'll have a smoothly and more
documented workflow for such things...

Hope this helps,

Dan

Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 14:32:12 UTC