Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

I have a personal preference for bib., as biblio. has to my ear a more traditional - monographs on shelves - feel about it and I hope that whatever results from our efforts will cover describing things from ancient manuscripts on shelves, to stand-alone born digital articles, and archives of multimedia.  However it doesn’t make too much difference either way.

As to using BibloGraph.net<http://BibloGraph.net> as a seed, I meant it as a seed to our proposal discussions.  The terms within it came from a need to describe resources referenced from the hundreds of millions of records  contributed to WorldCat.  Having some real needs to fulfil is a great start point.  Similarly, I hope others have needs that are not quite satisfied by the current breadth or Schema.org<http://Schema.org>.


~Richard

On 10 Mar 2015, at 14:20, Jeremy Nelson <Jeremy.Nelson@COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU<mailto:Jeremy.Nelson@COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU>> wrote:

+1 for biblio.

I would also like to participate in developing this vocabulary; especially on how to use this new extension using Fedora 4 as a linked data platform.

Jeremy Nelson
Metadata and Systems Librarian
Colorado College

From: Dan Scott [mailto:denials@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 2:35 PM
To: Thad Guidry; Wallis,Richard
Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org<mailto:public-schemabibex@w3.org>
Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Hi Richard:

I would certainly be willing to participate in developing a bib.schema.org<http://bib.schema.org/> corner of the universe (hopefully one not soon to be forgotten by the rest of the universe!)

But when you say "BiblioGraph.net<http://BiblioGraph.net> [...] that vocabulary acting a seed for a bib.schema.org<http://bib.schema.org/> extension which would eventually replace the current need for it", are you proposing that we start by adopting all of the current bibliograph.net<http://bibliograph.net/>extensions wholesale? I'm kind of hoping not :)

Also, per Thad's suggestion, biblio.schema.org<http://biblio.schema.org/> sounds fine to me too. No getting mistaken with a vocabulary for baby's drool-catchers.

Thanks,
Dan

On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 at 14:28 Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Richard,

I would prefer a bit more length() on the domain name:

biblio.schema.org<http://biblio.schema.org/>

otherwise +1

Thad
+ThadGuidry<https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>