Re: [Caution: Message contains Redirect URL content] Finalising bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

> On 22 Apr 2015, at 15:42, Heuvelmann, Reinhold <R.Heuvelmann@DNB.DE> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> Just to one point that Owen has picked:
>  
> > 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?
>  
> It may be the case that someone doesn’t know whether it is a person, or an organization -- so agent ist the catch-all.

Doesn’t ‘Thing’ act as the catch all though? If you really don’t know what type of ‘thing’ it is why do you need ‘Agent’ specifically?

> +
> It may be an agent who definitely is neither a person nor an organization, e.g. a family (archives use family entities), so agent is the more general entity.

So I’d argue that we should consider the things that are listed in the Agent description (and potentially others) first. The description of Agent lists:

person
group
software
physical artifact

Two of these already exist in schema.org (Person and SoftwareApplication)
Physical Artifact - If the ‘Physcial Artifact’ is a ‘Product’ then it can be described.  If it isn’t, then I agree there is a gap (and the lack of any ‘physical artifact’ separate to ‘product’ is a weakness of schema.org in my view)
Group is clearly ambiguous and so might be a candidate for a new type - but why not define Group rather than the more general Agent?

>  
> 
> Kind of resembles DC creator, in my perception.

I don’t agree. DC creator is a role, not a type of thing. 

I think it is closer to foaf:agent - which has subclasses of Person, Organisation and Group. However the example given in FOAF for the use of Agent is a ‘software bot’ which I think is already covered in schema.org using SoftwareApplication

>  
> Best wishes
>  
> Reinhold
>  
> --
>  
> Reinhold Heuvelmann
> German National Library
> Information Infrastructure and Preservation
> Office for Data Formats
> Adickesallee 1
> D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Germany
> Telephone: +49 (0) 69 1525-1709
> Telefax: +49 (0) 69 1525-1799
> mailto:r.heuvelmann@dnb.de <mailto:r.heuvelmann@d-nb.de>
> http://www.dnb.de <http://www.d-nb.de/>
>  
> *** Reading. Listening. Understanding. German National Library ***
>  
>  
> Von: Owen Stephens [mailto:owen@ostephens.com] 
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. April 2015 14:38
> An: Wallis,Richard
> Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Betreff: [Caution: Message contains Redirect URL content] Re: Finalising bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal
>  
> 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 <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 <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 <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
>  
>