RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Antoine,

My comment about purl.org was only to point out that *.schema.org would be another potential recipe for people to consider:

http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/#purls

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:10 AM
> To: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: 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 13:57:52 UTC