RE: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

There is also the advantage of them getting calls in the middle of the night because *.schema.org is down as opposed to Richard getting called when bibliography.net goes down.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: 'Ed Summers'
> Cc: Wallis,Richard; Antoine Isaac; public-schemabibex@w3.org
> Subject: 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.htm

> > > l> 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 18:05:56 UTC