Re: bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

Hi Richard,

Thanks for this. And thanks for all the time and work you have put into, and continue to put into this group.

I do appreciate that you’ve stripped back the proposal considerably in relation to concerns raised. 

I have to admit I’m still unclear as to what the advantage of having a first proposal to coincide with the release of the extension capability from Schema.org, and honestly, even with this more limited proposal I’d still prefer more time for discussion and a chance to bring more people into the discussion. I think this would reduce the risk of us doing something we need to unpick later. 

However, all that being said, given the limited nature of the extension now being proposed, I’m OK with this going forward as a proposed extension.

Owen

Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: owen@ostephens.com
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

> On 24 Apr 2015, at 22:22, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> Owen - a thanks, an apology, and a few comments.
> 
> Firstly, thank you for your close attention, input, comments, perseverance and commitment to making this, a better, concise proposal. 
> 
> Secondly an apology to all, that I flagged this as being nearer complete than it was.  It would have been much nearer if I had saved the couple of edits that were lurking in my editor windows before sending the email.  Specifically the deferral of GraphicNovel and the wording of Agent were not represented.
> 
> I agree that Meeting and MusicalScore may well have potential for properties to be added at a later date after experience, stimulates requests for such.  This being a common pattern in the evolution of Schema.org <http://schema.org/> that seems to work well.  The same could be said for Globe.
> 
> Ideally every property and type proposal should be accompanied by an example - in many cases, where a subtype adds no new properties, an example for its super type is sufficient.  In the time consuming process of creating examples, it is such situations that fall to the end of the queue.
> 
> Which brings me to the rushed nature as you describe it of the proposal.  As I have said several times in these threads, this proposal is a little unique in that we are trying to prepare something to coincide with the release of the extension capability from Schema.org <http://schema.org/>.  This is why Dan Scott and I were not precious of any of the proposals making it.  Also why extended discussion led to rapid deferral to the next release.  I have now done this for Meeting, MusicalScore, and Globe.
> 
> Currently the only, now proposed for release 1.0, terms without examples are Agent, Atlas, and Newspaper. These can be caught up as the proposal pass through the system.
> 
> So in the spirit of the above I would ask you to reconsider your support for this release as it now stands.
> 
> Once this one is being taken forward, we can then start to visit each of the deferred proposals and others that get suggested by or to the group.
> 
> ~Richard
> 
> On 24 Apr 2015, at 19:15, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com <mailto:owen@ostephens.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Richard,
>> 
>> I think there are still issues raised that haven’t been addressed, and discussion that really ought to be given more time. 
>> 
>> * Description of Agent still incorrect based on the discussion on here
>> * GraphicNovel is still being added as a BookFormatType - I thought we’d agreed this was on hold?
>> 
>> I’d also like to see:
>> 
>> Some analysis/discussion on possible properties of Meeting and MusicalScore types as I indicated in a previous email
>> At least an answer to my point that CartographicMap is not the correct term and GeographicMap would be better
>> More discussion of ‘Globe’ as a new type  - both the need for this type and the appropriateness of this in a ‘bib’ extension (and I realise we have different views on this latter point)
>> 
>> I also think it would make sense for examples to accompany the new types/properties to be presented to this group and reviewed before they go elsewhere.
>> 
>> I also want to re-iterate that the rushed nature of this proposal is a problem for getting adequate input from the community. I don’t understand why this cannot have more time for discussion, with each part of the proposal subject to at least some scrutiny. I don’t want to introduce some bureaucratic process, but putting aside the Comics proposal which I think has been subject to extensive discussion previously, this extension currently proposes 10 new types and 4 new properties, which we’ve had 7 days to discuss. This is simply not adequate in my opinion.
>> 
>> I’m afraid that at the moment I can’t support this as a proposed extension.
>> 
>> 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 24 Apr 2015, at 17:29, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org <mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I think we are now at the stage where the proposal, shaped well by our recent discussions, is ready to be wrapped up and forwarded for broader consideration by the main schema.org <http://schema.org/> group.
>>> 
>>> To that end I will take what is described 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>> (minus those that have been struck out to be deferred to a later version) and prepare the relevant definition and example files for submission to the schema.org <http://schema.org/> group.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ~Richard
>>> 
>> 
>