Re: SchemaBibEx and bib.schema.org

Hi Richard,

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 community, albeit not as much as something in the core. Whereas an external extension would be independently created

Yes, I definitely see the value in this. But a subdomain is not required. The schema.org editors could review an external extension and decide to incorporate all or bits of it into schema.org proper when they have time.

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

I still don’t get why a bib.schema.org is preferable to having things integrated properly into schema.org/Book etc.

//Ed