Re: An initial proposal for bib.schema.org

Hi all,

As promised I’ve created a wiki page to track the elements of this proposal <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Bib.schema.org-1.0>.

Each element having a status as to if it is [currently] in the proposal or not.

I ran out of time, so have yet to add the Comics Type/Properties.  Also I have not ton back through the threads here to identify changes suggestions.

Will get back to it probably Monday now, if anyone wants to dive in and do some more on it, be my guest.

~Richard

On 17 Apr 2015, at 15:24, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com<mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote:

[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<http://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<http://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