Re: Finalising bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

Following the consensus forming around the containers proposal I have deferred it for discussion to the next release.

~Richard

On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:03, Mark A. Matienzo <mark.matienzo@gmail.com<mailto:mark.matienzo@gmail.com>> wrote:

I strongly advise the exclusion of containers. I think I understand Richard's intent:

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/>.

...but, I nonetheless don't totally understand it, based on the examples provided. The example seems to suggest that the intent is the ability to refer to a specific unit of archival material for purpose of citation. Why do we care about "storage"? Corey is right - if this is intended to represent archival material, I'd suggest perhaps involving more archivists in this discussion.

Cheers,

Mark A. Matienzo <mark@matienzo.org<mailto:mark@matienzo.org>>
Director of Technology, Digital Public Library of America

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Corey A Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu<mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu>> wrote:
Hi Dan,

Thanks for your quick reply.

My concerns lie with BoxContainer, Container, FolderContainer, and Shelf.

I definitely see their utility, though. Perhaps if we're careful to frame this as more general than "Archives" it might be less problematic (to me). As I said, my main concern is not appearing to be making decisions on behalf of a very large community that hasn't been invited to the conversation.

Thanks,
-Corey

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com<mailto:danbri@google.com>> wrote:
On 22 April 2015 at 19:44, Corey A Harper <corey.harper@nyu.edu<mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu>> wrote:
> Hi Richard, et al.,
>
> I just wanted to state again for the record that I think it's premature to
> be doing archival container modeling with this kind of time-frame. I
> remember the length of deliberation we went through earlier in this group to
> achieve some kind of consensus on a bib extension with a much narrower
> scope. It feels problematic to me to do something completely new, for an
> unrepresented-but-related domain, with input from very few people.
>
> I don't disagree with what you've laid out in principle. I do worry about
> fostering ill will with the archives community if this group runs with the
> proposal as is without giving anyone from that domain a chance to chime in.
>
> Anyway, do with my comment what you will. I just wanted to share the
> concern.

Can suggest which specific pieces that should be postponed? And in
general I'm sympathetic on keeping this version modest. We should
consider this first version of the first hosted extension to be a baby
step, the start of a journey rather than the arrival at the
endpoint...

Dan



--
Corey A Harper
Metadata Services Librarian
New York University Libraries
20 Cooper Square, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10003-7112
212.998.2479<tel:212.998.2479>
corey.harper@nyu.edu<mailto:corey.harper@nyu.edu>