Re: bib.schema.org 1.0 proposal

Hi Richard:

Per Owen's earlier comment, I've pushed commit 23a6d866826270a6 to
https://github.com/dbs/schemaorg/tree/bibex_comics_coverart to change the
decription of "publisherImprint" to reference "the work" instead of "the
comic".

I know there have been some questions by the likes of @tmarshbing in the
corresponding github issue about the potentially generic nature of some of
the proposed new types and properties -- for example, the proposed "artist"
vs. the existing "byArtist". While I think "byArtist" was a relatively poor
choice of name for a property describing a musical recording artist, it
does suggest that leaving room for categories of artists might make sense:
for example, "musicalArtist", "performingArtist", "visualArtist".

To be honest, I had thought that one of the points of an extension was that
it would help avoid worrying about naming conflicts. That's not how it's
shaking out, which is fine. I do find it a bit funny that the first
reaction to a proposed extension is that it seems that some of the types
and properties should be part of the core (well yeah! this is important
stuff, and of course it intersects with other domains like VisualArtwork),
and is getting reviewed as though it was going to be part of core. So
what's the point of extensions again?

In any case, I'm not precious about the exact names of the properties; if
there's strong opposition, we could prefix the properties that are
applicable pretty much only with visual artwork with "visual" or even
"visualArtwork" (e.g. "visualArtist", "visualLetterer" or
"visualArtworkArtist", "visualArtworkLetterer"). Realistically, I think
that disambiguating prefix would be required only for "artist" and perhaps
"colorist" (although I'm willing to make the describers of hair salons use
"hairColorist" instead).

Dan

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
wrote:

>  Thanks for that Owen, I’m sure the core group will appreciate having an
> actual extension to release with and demonstrate the extension capability..
>
>  Also I have now added examples for Agent, Atlas, and Newspaper (The
> beneficial side of sitting on a plane for 7 hours!) so all proposals have
> examples.
>
>  Any other wishing to comment before I forward this to the core group?
>
>  ~Richard
>
>  On 25 Apr 2015, at 18:11, Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com> wrote:
>
>  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 <http://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> 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
> Email: owen@ostephens.com
> Telephone: 0121 288 6936
>
>  On 24 Apr 2015, at 17:29, Wallis,Richard <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 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> (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 group.
>
>
>   ~Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>