Re: Proposal for a small additions to bib.schema.org

It compares with what is currently found in library catalogues, originally
from the Marc cataloging practices which heavily influence emerging
Bibframe practices.

One of the libraries I have been working with are mapping from Bibframe
Lite (one of the several flavours of Bibframe) to Schema.org.

Here are the types for mapping from that library:

   - Article
   - Audio
   - Book
   - Cartography
   - Collection
   - DigitalApplication
   - DigitalVideo
   - ElectronicBook
   - LanguageMaterial
   - Manuscript
   - MovingImage
   - Multimedia
   - Musical
   - NotatedMusic
   - Painting
   - Periodical
   - Photograph
   - PhysicalMap
   - PhysicalVideo
   - Poster
   - Sounds
   - SpokenWord
   - StillImage

Here iis a listing from another library of the lists of content and carrier
types they have:


   -  Text
   -  StillImage
   -  Cartography
   -  Audio
   -  MixedMaterial
   -  NotatedMusic
   -  Multimedia
   -  Dataset
   -  MovingImage
   -  Tactile



   - Monograph
   - Electronic
   - Serial
   - Collection
   - Integrating
   - Tactile
   - Manuscript
   - Multipart monograph
   - Archival

Many of the types listed are handled in different ways by Schema.org, using
MTEs - mixing CreativeWork types with Products etc.

There are a couple of areas for potential improvement from a Schema.org
point of view.  Firstly addressing a few missing types that make it
difficult to mark up resources - Manuscript, Poster, Drawing,
SheetMusic.  My proposal taking the pragmatic style of naming the types
around things.  e.g.. SheetMusic for NotatedMusic.

Secondly, there is the potential for somehow grouping/organising types of
resources.  I believe that to do that we would need to introduce some form
of hierarchy into the CreativeWork inheritance, as mentioned in the git
issue
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1448#issuecomment-263557145>.
  Do we need a [still]Image super-type for painting, drawing, photograph,
etc a *MovingImage* super-type for video, movie, etc. and a *Sound* super-type
for speech, music, sound-effects etc.?  I think that would need a load more
thought and consideration before being proposed, if considered necessary.

~Richard.

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 29 November 2016 at 13:43, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> Thanks for this. Can you offer any insight into how this approach
> compares/contrasts to whatever's going on in the Bibframe world? Do
> they have similar short lists of work types?
>
> Dan
>
> On 29 November 2016 at 13:14, Richard Wallis
> <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Just a heads-up that I have proposed minor enhancements to the
> > bib.schema.org extension to Schema.org.
> >
> > It is for 4 new subtypes of CreativeWork (Manuscript, Poster, Drawing,
> > SheetMusic), plus adding the publisher property to the PublicationEvent
> > Type.
> >
> > This has come out of personal practical experience with a few
> > national/international library organisations towards applying Schema.org
> to
> > their catalogues.
> >
> > The proposal can be found in GitHub issue (#1448)
> >
> > As I say in the proposal “Like others, I am reticent to propose/recommend
> > ever increasing numbers of subtypes to allow categorisation of a
> particular
> > domain. However in this case, I believe we are close to covering the vast
> > majority of types that this domain commonly describes. I therefore
> propose
> > the above to attempt to bring this extension closer to completion."
> >
> >
> > ~Richard.
> > Richard Wallis
> > Founder, Data Liberate
> > http://dataliberate.com
> > Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> > Twitter: @rjw
>