RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

One advantage of having them in the *.schema.org space (presumably) would be that if someone typed in "microform" in their search box they would discover http://bib.schema.org/Microform. That isn't the case with current external extensions like http://bibliograph.net/Microform.


Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Summers [mailto:ehs@pobox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:47 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Wallis,Richard; Antoine Isaac; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
> 
> I kind of missed the point of why reviewed extensions are desirable in
> Guha’s proposal. Is there some practical value to having a subdomain at
> e1.schema.org rather than putting the vocabularies at schema.org proper? I
> completely understand why there is value in external extensions.
> 
> //Ed
> 
> > On Mar 11, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> >
> > How about glam.schema.org?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLAM_%28industry_sector%29

> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > From: Wallis,Richard [mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:21 PM
> > To: Antoine Isaac
> > Cc: public-schemabibex@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org
> >
> > Great to see us all diving in and discussing the name ;-)
> >
> > As Tim implies most names have baggage or potential conflicts with other
> domains.  So bibex.schema.org has some appeal - except for this perhaps:
> http://www.dama.upc.edu/technology-transfer/bibex  ‘bib.schema.org’
> came from the proposal itself, and I have often heard us referred to as the
> folks in the bib community.  Whatever, no need to make a decision just yet.
> >
> >
> > As to Antoine’s question about sustainability, there are a couple of angles
> to this.
> >
> > Firstly there is an obvious concern from those behind schema.org that
> extensions will be sustained.  From what I understand, the expectation will
> be that the definition of an extension will be held in a simple file that is
> publicly visible, say in Github, so that it can be pulled into the documentation
> when required as *.schema.org URIs are resolved.
> >
> > Then there is the concern about the sustainability of schema.org itself.  Yes
> in theory, the search engines could shut up shop and go home tomorrow,
> however the adoption is so wide already that they would find it difficult to do
> that.  Whatever eventually comes after schema.orgI suspect would need to
> provide an upgrade path from schema.org to be successful, and even then I
> would expect the need to preserve at least a frozen version of Schema.org
> would need be addressed before they moved on.
> >
> > All this being speculation of course, but my pragmatic view is fairly
> optimistic.
> >
> >
> > ~Richard
> >
> > On 11 Mar 2015, at 15:23, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 17:55:42 UTC