RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

If 'biblio' is considered outdated/old-fashioned I'm not sure if I see 
that 'bib' is any better. Since this schema is meant to address metadata 
for information resources maybe resources.schema.org (confused with energy 
resources perhaps) or citation.schema.org would be better(?).  However, if 
'bib' is considered an important thing to carry forward why not use 
bibex.schema.org like this list?
Best regards,
Tim

___________________________________________
F. Tim Knight
Associate Librarian
Head of Technical Services
Osgoode Hall Law School Library
Ignat Kaneff Building
York University
4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada  M3J 1P3
T: 416-650-8403
F: 416-736-5298
E: tknight@osgoode.yorku.ca
W: http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/faculty-and-staff/knight-f-tim/







From:   Robert Hilliker <robert_hilliker@hotmail.com>
To:     "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>, 
Cc:     "Wallis,Richard" <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Date:   03/11/2015 10:09 AM
Subject:        RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org



+1 for this proposal and +1 for "bib" over "biblio": beyond sharing 
Richard's sense that "biblio" is an old-fashioned, book-centric sounding 
term, I also have a preference for shorter URLs.

Rob

From: Richard.Wallis@oclc.org
To: Jeremy.Nelson@COLORADOCOLLEGE.EDU
CC: denials@gmail.com; thadguidry@gmail.com; Richard.Wallis@oclc.org; 
public-schemabibex@w3.org
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:21:00 +0000
Subject: 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 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. 


~Richard

On 10 Mar 2015, at 14:20, Jeremy Nelson <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
Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
 
Hi Richard:

I would certainly be willing to participate in developing a 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 [...] that vocabulary acting a seed for 
a 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.netextensions wholesale? I'm kind of hoping not :)
 
Also, per Thad's suggestion, 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> wrote:
Hi Richard,
 
I would prefer a bit more length() on the domain name:
 
biblio.schema.org
 
otherwise +1

Thad
+ThadGuidry