Re: Finalising bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

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>
Director of Technology, Digital Public Library of America

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Corey A Harper <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> wrote:
>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 19:44, Corey A Harper <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
> corey.harper@nyu.edu
>