Re: Finalising bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

Hello,

I followed the discussion a bit and just had a look at the wiki page. 
Below some thoughts/comments..

Adding bibliographic types

If types like Atlas, Chapter, Globe, Newspaper, MusicalScore, Thesis 
etc. are added, the group should be open to further inclusion of a bunch 
of other types. As it happens, we are working on an actual bibliography 
for the web [1] (and will be happy to include (bib.)schema.org markup at 
some point in the future). From this point of view, we would like to 
have these types added at a later point: OfficialPublication, 
Bibliography, Biography, Festschrift, Legislation, Proceedings, 
ReferenceSource, Schoolbook.
Is this prospective aggregation of bibliographic types intended? If yes, 
I am ok with publishing this initial extension. If we are not prepared 
to add a lot of additional types in the future, we should think about 
other ways of typing bibliographic resources and should refrain for now 
from publication of the bib extension.

containedIn property

Looking at the proposal, the containedIn property description sticks out 
from the others as it deescribes the relation and not the object of the 
statement as usually. I'd suggest something like: "The container a thing 
is contained in." Also, the domain for this property doesn't seem right, 
shouldn't it just be Thing?

All the best
Adrian

[1] http://lobid.org/nwbib

On 22.04.2015 14:37, Owen Stephens wrote:
> I still feel this is rushed. Most of the things here have not been
> discussed, and the number of people contributing to the discussion is
> minimal which makes it hard to feel there is community consensus around
> any of this one way or the other.
>
> I don’t believe we have had a proper discussion about the pros/cons of
> splitting this into multiple extensions (for which ‘Comic’ could be a
> candidate).
>
> The vast majority of new Types have no specific properties associated
> with them which I think makes it difficult to have a sensible discussion
> about them (I’m not saying having specific properties is absolutely
> necessary to justifying a new Type, but I think it would help). I think
> as an absolute minimum for a Type to be approved as part of the
> extension there should be an example of usage/markup.
>
> To pick out specifics:
>
> Chapter and Thesis have some specific properties and make sense to me
>
> I’m not convinced having a generic ‘Agent’ is a good idea rather than
> defining the things we need to support which are not Organisations or
> Persons. What are the things that need supporting here?
>
> Meeting - seems like a reasonable type at first glance but shouldn’t
> this have some properties?
> MusicScore - as with Meeting
>
> CartographicMap - is this the correct term? Aren’t all maps cartographic
> by definition? I suspect GeographicMap is a better term, but I lack the
> expertise to know this with any certainty
>
> translationOfWork
> translator
> workTranslation
> Collection
>
> all seem OK to me at first glance
>
> Containers/Archive stuff - I haven’t had a chance to look at
>
> Apologies if some of this is a bit brief/brusque - just trying to get
> some of these issues out there before this all moves forward
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Owen Stephens Consulting
> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
> Email: owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 13:03, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
>> <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have rationalised the proposed types and properties listing on the
>> wiki page
>> <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Bib.schema.org-1.0> to
>> narrow down what will be in this release. As we try to get this ready
>> for release at the end of this week.
>>
>> Kit, Toy, PublicationSeries, BookFormatType:AudioBook,
>> BookFormatType:LargePrintBook, BookFormatType:PrintBook all being
>> deferred to a later release (1.1 - see wiki page
>> <https://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Bib.schema.org-1.1>)
>>
>> Collection has been moved in with the General Types & Properties as it
>> is more general than just containers.
>>
>> Comics, I have added the details and links to the Wiki page.
>>
>> Containers - I would still like to see this in if possible. It is
>> targeted at the storage of archive material, not the organisation of
>> archives themselves - see example on the container page
>> <http://sdo-bib.appspot.com/Container?ext=bib> - it is a basic
>> foundation that could be used elsewhere and may at a later date be ca
>> candidate for promotion to there core schema.org <http://schema.org/>.
>>
>> As said previously, we are not precious of any of these proposals
>> being in the release.  However what we have here seems to fit together
>> well as an initial release of bib.schema.org <http://bib.schema.org/>.
>>
>> Final comments please….
>>
>>
>> ~Richard
>>
>

-- 
Adrian Pohl
hbz - Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes NRW
Tel: (+49)(0)221 - 400 75 235
http://www.hbz-nrw.de

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2015 13:32:27 UTC