If the you/others referenced here are communities such as 'the library
community', 'the search engine community', 'the ecommerce community',
potentially 'the publisher community', etc., this stance makes some sense.
If it is trading localised marc profiles for localised BIBFRAME profiles,
you are right - we will be not much better off.
Even if you are talking about the former, data publishers must remain
aware of the potentially differing consumer communities they are
supporting. In other words a library may well be publishing data using
the BIBFRAME vocabulary (for other libraries to consume) at the same time
as Schema.org (for the search engines to consume).
On 13/03/2013 12:26, "Tom Emerson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Michael Hopwood writes:
>> 1) Your own vocabulary (even if it is substantially made up of re-used
>> terms, it still has its own identity)
>> 2) Mappings to others' vocabularies
>At which point I don't feel like the community is any better off than we
>are now, where each major library has its own tweaks to MARC that
>consumers need to deal with. We're trading one thing for another. This
>is especially true once you start account for international records.
>Principal Software Engineer, Search
>[log in to unmask]