- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:12:22 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <FE8370FC-1796-40C6-8A01-41576727882F@pobox.com>
Yes, but this was Guha’s proposal (from Google/schema.org) not Richards :-) I was interested in the original intention. I guess I should ask over on the public-vocabs. //Ed > On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: > > 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 18:13:41 UTC