Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Hi everyone,

I think this is an interesting proposal, and approves that this group would be an ideal forum to devise such an extension.

What I'm slightly worried about is the persistence of schema.org extensions, if the community starts using them a lot.

Jeff mentioned about purl.org in the proposal
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-hq53ZtP1NxRqpjCCuhVRRwqQmEuaAzWDQ7OuG18_pg/
I'm not sure schema.org extensions are better in every point to purl.org.
Say, if OCLC shuts down purl.org and wishes to hand it over to someone else, there might be a consensus (and a consortium) in the community to jump in and maintain it.
If schema.org is shut down by Google et al, doing this would be more difficult, given the variety of people and orgs involved in the extensions.

I don't foresee shutting down schema.org as a problem per se. It is meant for specific purposes, and if Google/Yahoo/Yandex think it's not working, so be it: they are the core stakeholders, and I'm ok with such natural selection for vocabularies.

But the library community may start to rely on the schema.org extension for "deeper" data exchange scenarios, beyond schema.org's orginal case of web page mark-up. Some discussions and papers I've seen in the past couple of months hint a bit at this. This could be an awkward dependency.

Best,

Antoine

On 3/9/15 5:16 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Last month I copied the SchemaBibEx list with the proposal <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015Feb/0052.html> from Guha, on the public-vocabs list, for an extension mechanism for the Schema.org <http://Schema.org> vocabulary.
>
> As I said at the time, I welcome this proposal which will enable the broad extension of Schema.org <http://Schema.org> to satisfy many needs of individual sectors without loosing the essential generic cross sector nature of Schema itself.  I also have some confidence in the approach proposed as it has been used in a very similar way to produce the BiblioGraph.net <http://BiblioGraph.net> extension vocabulary that was referred to in the proposal.
>
> In simple terms, my understanding of how this would operate is thus:
>
>   * A group of individuals from an interested domain or sector would take on the role of discussing and deciding what extension types and properties could usefully be added to a [their] domain specific extension to schema.org <http://schema.org>.
>       o The domain group would manage their own publicly visible view of what is current and proposed for their extensions - in Github for example.
>       o The domain group would propose their initial, then later updates, extension to the core Schema.org <http://Schema.org> group.
>
>   * The core group upon receiving extension proposals would discuss and recommend, only from the point of view of compatibility with the overall vocabulary (Type & Property name conflicts etc.).
>       o In effect they will be validating on syntax, not the semantics of and areas covered by the extensions.
>       o When accepted the schema.org <http://schema.org> site would be configured to include the latest version of the extension and its associated examples.
>
>
> I am suggesting that the SchemaBibEx Group, or a subset of it, is the ideal group to act as the Domain Group for the broad bibliographic domain - bib.schema.org <http://bib.schema.org>.
>
> What are people’s thoughts on this - the extension proposal itself, bib.schema.org <http://bib.schema.org>, the potential for our group to participate as a domain group?
>
> Currently Guha’s proposal is just a proposal, but I know there is discussion and efforts going into establishing it as a way forward.  Being able to offer support and intention to offer up one of the first extensions I believe would be good for Schema.org <http://Schema.org> and the broad description of bibliographic data on the web.
>
> On a practical note, Guha’s proposal used the small BibloGraph.net <http://bibliograph.net/> extension vocabulary as an example to model things on.  As editor of BiblioGraph.net <http://BiblioGraph.net> I see no problem with the terms within that vocabulary acting a seed for a bib.schema.org <http://bib.schema.org> extension which would eventually replace the current need for it.
>
>
> ~Richard
>

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2015 09:10:14 UTC