[gnd-ontology] RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

Thomas Adamich vls at tusco.net
Fre Jun 28 17:46:34 CEST 2013 

Then may I recommend engaging Alexander Haffner from the Deutsch
Nationalbibliothek in the SchemaBibEx discussion if Richard and other
leaders in our group have not already done so.   Such action might
address Ed Summers' observation that time is spent on creating
standards rather than building upon good works already generated and
optimizing data access. Thanks.
Tom

	Tom Adamich, MLS 

	President 

	Visiting Librarian Service 

	P.O. Box 932 

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663 

	330-364-4410 

	vls at tusco.net [1] 

----- Original Message -----
From: "YoungJeff (OR)" 
To:"Thomas Adamich" , "Ed Summers" , "Shlomo Sanders" 
Cc:"Dan Scott" , "public-schemabibex at w3.org" , "sam at mitinet.com" ,
"kcoyle at kcoyle.net" , "datendienste at dnb.de" 
Sent:Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:39:02 +0000
Subject:RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

	Yes.

	 

	FROM: Thomas Adamich [mailto:vls at tusco.net] 
SENT: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:37 AM
TO: Young,Jeff (OR); Thomas Adamich; Ed Summers; Shlomo Sanders
CC: Dan Scott; public-schemabibex at w3.org; sam at mitinet.com;
kcoyle at kcoyle.net; datendienste at dnb.de
SUBJECT: RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

	 

	Then, would it be wise to examine similar successful ventures into
the library ontology space and leveraging those object properties for
purposes of building a stronger Schema;Creative works ,
specifically http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd# [2] ?

	 

	Tom

	Tom Adamich, MLS

	President

	Visiting Librarian Service

	P.O. Box 932

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663

	330-364-4410

	vls at tusco.net [3] 

	 

 ----- Original Message -----

	FROM:

	"YoungJeff (OR)" 

	 

	TO:

	"Thomas Adamich" , "Ed Summers" , "Shlomo Sanders" 

	CC:

	"Dan Scott" , "public-schemabibex at w3.org [9]" , "sam at mitinet.com
[11]" 

	SENT:

	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:12:40 +0000

	SUBJECT:

	RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

	I think that Schema.org is lacking a lot of useful object properties
between schema:CreativeWorks, but I don’t think the domain/range of
those object properties need to be tightly bound to FRBR WEMI classes.


	 

	Jeff

	 

	FROM: Thomas Adamich [mailto:vls at tusco.net [13]] 
SENT: Friday, June 28, 2013 11:02 AM
TO: Young,Jeff (OR); Ed Summers; Shlomo Sanders
CC: Dan Scott; public-schemabibex at w3.org [14]; sam at mitinet.com [15]
SUBJECT: RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

	 

	..So it's safe to say that any contextual relationship functions
enabled by adding FRBR/Holdings would be redundant?

	 

	Tom 

	Tom Adamich, MLS

	President

	Visiting Librarian Service

	P.O. Box 932

	New Philadelphia, OH 44663

	330-364-4410

	vls at tusco.net [16] 

	 

 ----- Original Message -----

	 FROM:

	 "YoungJeff (OR)" 

	 

	TO:

	"Ed Summers" , "Shlomo Sanders" 

	CC:

	"Dan Scott" , "public-schemabibex at w3.org [21]" 

	SENT:

	Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:44:32 +0000

	SUBJECT:

	RE: BIBFRAME and schema.org

 It's pointless to add FRBR/Holdings to Schema.org because they
already have the critical components built-in to their
schema:Product/schema:Offer branch. It's presumably fair to say that
most SchemaBibEx members don’t want to look at it that way, but
there it is.

 Jeff

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: ed.summers at gmail.com [23] [mailto:ed.summers at gmail.com [24]]
On Behalf Of
 > Ed Summers
 > Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:36 AM
 > To: Shlomo Sanders
 > Cc: Dan Scott; public-schemabibex at w3.org [25]
 > Subject: Re: BIBFRAME and schema.org
 > 
 > Thanks for sharing this Karen. I haven't read the article, and am
 > somewhat unlikely to now, but I was personally never interested
much in
 > FRBRizing schema.org. I was (and continue to be) interested in
adding
 > whatever small bits we need to schemaorg to make it more useful to
 > applications and services we want to build. If schemabibex could
 > provide input to Google and other search engines to display
 > bibliographic information better in search results that would be
great.
 > It also seems like tools like Google Scholar would be a fair bit
more
 > useful with a bit of schema.org mixed into their HTML. But I also
think
 > there is also an opportunity for smaller groups (dpla, europeana,
etc)
 > to use schema.org metadata expressed in web pages for providing
views
 > onto pockets of cultural heritage material on the Web.
 > 
 > I guess I'm jaded at this point, but the library and the linked
data
 > communities seem far too fixated on getting the metadata just right
for
 > some future applications to use, instead of building applications
that
 > use what we already have, using existing standards. I always hoped
that
 > schema-bibex would be a place to share ideas about how we wanted to
use
 > the data in our systems and services, and figure out what
vocabulary
 > bits we needed to add to make them better. It seems like too much
 > energy goes into making new standards, that are associated with
 > particular institutions, and that little energy is left for the
work of
 > actually putting the data to use.
 > 
 > //Ed
 > 
 > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Shlomo Sanders
 >  wrote:
 > > +1
 > >
 > > Thanks,
 > > Shlomo
 > >
 > > Sent from my iPad
 > >
 > > On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:46, "Dan Scott"  wrote:
 > >
 > > Thanks Karen. I generally concur with your reaction (although I
have
 > > to admit that for the first time in my life I was getting hung up
on
 > > the _terrible_ kerning of the font in the PDF, so had been
reading
 > > through it rather slowly).
 > >
 > > I was surprised by many of the statements in the paper about the
 > > direction, decisions, thoughts, and beliefs of the Schema BibEx
 > group
 > > Perhaps if all (or most) of those statements were modified to say
 > they
 > > were the direction, decisions, thoughts, beliefs "of the OCLC
 > > employees currently participating in the Schema BibEx community"
that
 > > would be more acceptable--certainly closer to the truth.
 > >
 > > I very much value the opinions (& Richard's leadership) of the
OCLC
 > > participants in this group, but cannot endorse this paper as an
 > > accurate reflection of the group's positions, direction, etc as a
 > > whole, particularly with respect to BIBFRAME.
 > >
 > >
 > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Karen Coyle 
 > wrote:
 > >>
 > >> Richard, now that I've gotten further along in reading this, I
think
 > >> that "posting it to the list" is the least that you should have
 > done.
 > >> This document, written by OCLC and not vetted by this list,
 > >> attributes to the schema bibex group a number of decisions and
 > >> thoughts that I do not recognize. It uses "we" to mean not OCLC
but
 > >> the bibex group. I find this more than just problematic - this
is at
 > >> least arrogant and possibly dishonest. I now find decisions
 > >> attributed to this group that I cannot condone, yet as a member
of
 > >> the group one could infer that they are mine as well.
 > >>
 > >> OCLC cannot speak for this group, and it definitely cannot speak
for
 > >> this group in a document that this group did not even see. Godby
 > >> stated that this would be presented at the BIBFRAME session at
ALA.
 > >> If it is presented as the thoughts of the bibex group and not
OCLC,
 > you should be ashamed.
 > >>
 > >> Here are just a few examples from the document:
 > >>
 > >> "This shift in focus implies a decision by the SchemaBibEx
community
 > >> to defer to the important standards initiatives of the library
 > >> community, including BIBFRAME, to develop vocabulary required
for
 > >> detailed descriptions of library resources." p. 11 - I do not
think
 > we have discussed this at all.
 > >> In fact, we haven't really discussed the relationship of
schema.org
 > >> and BIBFRAME in any detail, and I'm not sure it is necessarily
 > >> appropriate for us to do so in this forum. There may be some
folks
 > on
 > >> the group who aren't even paying attention to BIBFRAME, but who
wish
 > >> to mark up bibliographic displays unrelated to libraries.
 > >>
 > >> "Though the BIBFRAME initiative needs to develop its own policy
with
 > >> regard to the Product Types Ontology, the SchemaBibEx community
sees
 > >> little need to define and maintain a competing vocabulary for
 > content
 > >> types and carriers." p. 17 - Again, a decision that I do not
recall.
 > >> Also, AFAIK, no one except Jeff has promoted the use of the
product
 > >> types ontology, and we haven't discussed its use in any detail
in
 > the group.
 > >>
 > >> "The SchemaBIBEx community is exploring the possiblity that
 > >> schema:IndividualProduct ... corresponds reasonably well to the
 > >> definition of FRBR Item." p. 17 - We haven't really touched on
the
 > >> item level yet. This is one idea, but it is premature to
attribute
 > this thinking to the group.
 > >>
 > >> "To move forward, two issues must be resolved. First, we must
reach
 > >> agreement on working definitions of key concepts. Then we must
solve
 > >> the technical problem of mismatched expectations about domain
and
 > >> range values..." p. 18 - I object to the use of "we" here
because it
 > >> is talking about the work of the SchemaBibEx group, not OCLC.
This
 > >> implies that the document is coming from the bibex group, not
OCLC.
 > That is not true.
 > >>
 > >> Sorry for the blunt talk, but this document must be re-written
to
 > >> reflect that it is the thoughts and opinions of OCLC, not the
bibex
 > >> group. And that absolutely must be made clear at ALA.
 > >>
 > >> kc
 > >>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> On Thu Jun 27 10:41:15 2013, Wallis,Richard wrote:
 > >>>
 > >>> Thanks Karen for posting this to the list. Travelling got in
the
 > >>> way of me ensuring that it was published here and on the
BIBFRAME
 > >>> list at about the same time.
 > >>>
 > >>> ~Richard.
 > >>>
 > >>> On 27/06/2013 11:59, "Karen Coyle"  wrote:
 > >>>
 > >>>> All,
 > >>>>
 > >>>> If you are on the BIBFRAME list you will have seen a message
from
 > >>>> Jean Godby with a link to her paper:
 > >>>>
 > >>>> Godby, Carol Jean. 2013. The Relationship between BIBFRAME and
the
 > >>>> Schemaorg ŒBib Extensions¹ Model: A Working Paper. Dublin,
Ohio:
 > >>>> OCLC Research.
 > >>>>
 > >>>>
 > http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/
[30]
 > >>>> 2013-05
 > >>>> ..pdf.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> This 41 page(!) paper is an excellent analysis of the possible
 > >>>> relationship between BIBFRAME and schema.org. This is a topic
 > which
 > >>>> we have not discussed directly in this group, and I would like
to
 > >>>> propose that we could merge this discussion with our
consideration
 > >>>> of "instanceOf" and "has Instance" -- which we decided to push
to
 > >>>> this list at the end of our last webex meeting on Tuesday,
June
 > 25.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> The paper presents the alignment of schema.org and FRBR as a
 > >>>> primary goal of this group [1]. I take exception to that, as
may
 > >>>> others. But I believe that the underlying question is the
 > >>>> coordination of BIBFRAME and schema.org, and that should be
 > >>>> discussed first. There are obvious benefits to the library
 > >>>> community to bringing these two into alignment, but we should
also
 > >>>> discuss whether we can do so without silo-ing library data
once
 > again.
 > >>>>
 > >>>> kc
 > >>>>
 > >>>> [1] "The main objective of the redesign is to improve the
 > >>>> representation of the FRBR hierarchy using concepts already
 > defined in Schema.org.
 > >>>> Since the application of the FRBR hierarchy requires the
 > >>>> association of descriptions with differing degrees of
abstraction,
 > >>>> the schemaBibEx community has also proposed the properties
 > >>>> hasInstance and isInstanceOf, whose semantics resemble the
 > BIBFRAME properties with the same names."
 > >>>> (Godby, p. 11)
 > >>>> --
 > >>>> Karen Coyle
 > >>>> kcoyle at kcoyle.net [31] http://kcoyle.net [32]
 > >>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
 > >>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
 > >>>> skype: kcoylenet
 > >>>>
 > >>>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>
 > >> --
 > >> Karen Coyle
 > >> kcoyle at kcoyle.net [33] http://kcoyle.net [34]
 > >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
 > >> m: 1-510-435-8234
 > >> skype: kcoylenet
 > >>
 > >
 > >
 > 

-------------------------

	Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

-------------------------

	Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

-------------------------
Email sent using webmail from Omnicity

Links:
------
[1] mailto:vls at tusco.net
[2] http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd
[3] mailto:vls at tusco.net
[4] mailto:jyoung at oclc.org
[5] mailto:vls at tusco.net
[6] mailto:ehs at pobox.com
[7] mailto:Shlomo.Sanders at exlibrisgroup.com
[8] mailto:denials at gmail.com
[9] mailto:public-schemabibex at w3.org
[10] mailto:public-schemabibex at w3.org
[11] mailto:sam at mitinet.com
[12] mailto:sam at mitinet.com
[13] mailto:vls at tusco.net
[14] mailto:public-schemabibex at w3.org
[15] mailto:sam at mitinet.com
[16] mailto:vls at tusco.net
[17] mailto:jyoung at oclc.org
[18] mailto:ehs at pobox.com
[19] mailto:Shlomo.Sanders at exlibrisgroup.com
[20] mailto:denials at gmail.com
[21] mailto:public-schemabibex at w3.org
[22] mailto:public-schemabibex at w3.org
[23] mailto:ed.summers at gmail.com
[24] mailto:ed.summers at gmail.com
[25] mailto:public-schemabibex at w3.org
[26] mailto:Shlomo.Sanders at exlibrisgroup.com
[27] mailto:denials at gmail.com
[28] mailto:kcoyle at kcoyle.net
[29] mailto:kcoyle at kcoyle.net
[30]
http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/
[31] mailto:kcoyle at kcoyle.net
[32] http://kcoyle.net
[33] mailto:kcoyle at kcoyle.net
[34] http://kcoyle.net

-------------- nächster Teil --------------
Ein Dateianhang mit HTML-Daten wurde abgetrennt...
URL: http://lists.d-nb.de/pipermail/gnd-ontology/attachments/20130628/cd347128/attachment-0001.html