Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

An external extraction misses two important attributes that are features of a reviewed extension.

1) A reviewed extension is something that has been looked at and discussed by the schema.org<http://schema.org> community, albeit not as much as something in the core. Whereas an external extension would be independently created

2) A reviewed extension gets its own chunk of schema.org<http://schema.org> namespace. This should not be underestimated in its potential for broad adoption.

~Richard

On 11 Mar 2015, at 20:35, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com<mailto:ehs@pobox.com>> wrote:


On Mar 11, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:

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.

So why wouldn’t the external mechanism outlined by Guha work for that scenario?

//Ed