Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

The point, I believe is to delegate out to groups, concerned about, and understanding of the issues and needs within a particular domain, the ability to define what is needed in the extension.  This would relieve the core group of the need to understand those concerns, and the following of the inevitable debate about them.  

The core group would still have the syntactical concerns about naming clashes etc., but overall it should be a more efficient process.


~Richard

On 11 Mar 2015, at 18:12, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:

> 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 19:56:16 UTC