Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

OK, Jeff!
Then I should perhaps have attached my comment somewhere else. But I don't want to remove it :)

Antoine

On 3/11/15 2:56 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 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 15:24:06 UTC