On 3/14/13 10:29 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> Schema.org is NOT "yet another monolithic vocabulary". It also isn't
> dependent on HTML markup.
Well, the schema.org properties are all in the schema.org namespace, so 
there is http://schema.org/title, not http://purl.org/dc/title, or 
http://rdvocab.info/Elements/Title. Obviously you can put whatever 
metadata you want into your HTML file, but schema.org is schema.org. I'm 
quite unclear as to why you think this is the only or best way to create 
linked data, since it truly is a microdata format designed for HTML mark-up.

And speaking of schema.org, the namespace is owned by Google, which to 
my mind makes it essentially proprietary. Yes, all namespaces need to be 
owned by someone, but I would prefer to use properties that are backed 
by institutions with the kind of longevity that we in libraries aim to, 
and often do, achieve. This has been my criticism of FOAF -- a fine 
vocabulary but no solid institutional backing. There have been 
discussions of using library archiving skills and facilities to archive 
key vocabularies, and FOAF seems to me to be a contender. This could 
bring something like FOAF into library space (if we do want to use FOAF 
properties, of course). What we lack in most vocabularies is good 
versioning so that a vocabulary can evolve without breaking current and 
past usage. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

kc



kc






> It IS inherently Linked Data.
>
> Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] Reuse (or not) of existing ontologies
>
> On 3/14/13 3:43 AM, Owen Stephens wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2013, at 21:13, Eric Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Our initial linked data analysis identified literally dozens of
>>> namespaces used in the Library community reflecting various stages of
>>> experimentation. More if you start to broaden analysis to the include
>>> museums, archives, galleries, etc.. And even more if you broaden into
>>> more of how we might imagine patrons / others adding value to this
>>> data. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone familiar with RDF /
>>> Linked Data. There isn't one vocabulary that works (or will work) for
>>> everything. ;)
>> I'd absolutely agree with this - which is perhaps why the idea of a
> 'bibframe' vocabulary worries me. While I absolutely see the point of a
> framework in which libraries operate to describe resources, approaching
> the description of resources from a library perspective only worries me
> more. Even if we are creating new vocabularies (for the reasons already
> put forward), I wonder if there is an argument for having a more 'small
> bits' approach to building these than trying to create a single
> vocabulary to tackle the whole of library description?
>
> First, I want to note that RDA, the cataloging rules that prompted the
> idea that we need to move away from MARC to something more akin to
> linked data, already has an RDF vocabulary and its own namespace. [1]
> This is managed by JSC. So either BIBFRAME will duplicate the well over
> 1,000 RDA properties, or it must make use of that property set. It isn't
>
> clear why BIBFRAME isn't using the RDA RDF where it applies.
>
> Second, I'm seeing some confusion about what BIBFRAME is. Is it a
> framework? Is it a framework + vocabulary?  I was under the impression
> that BIBFRAME was providing a basic model of "things in the
> bibliographic space" within which a variety of vocabularies could be
> used. What concerns me about the current direction is the emphasis on
> converting MARC records. At least experimentation with RDA would be
> looking toward the future rather than the past.
>
> And finally, my suggestion about using a "public facing" form of our
> data is not the same as Richard's suggestion of schema.org. While it may
>
> become well-known, schema.org is "yet another monolithic vocabulary." It
>
> is also wrapped around displays in HTML. While it may evolve into
> something else, it isn't inherently linked data. We need to be linking
> to data in the LOD space ASAP if we want to be "of the web." There are
> many possibilities for that, but we aren't taking advantage of them.
>
> kc
>
> [1] http://rdvocab.info
>
>> If this was done carefully we may even encourage other communities to
> take up some of the family of vocabularies used within bibframe which,
> to be honest, seems unlikely if what we end up with is a big 'library
> vocabulary'. It might also say to the rest of the community that we
> ('libraries') understand that this isn't about creating 'one vocab to
> rule them all' :)
>> It may be that some of the concerns I have can be mitigated by simply
> declaring equivalence between bibframe entities and entities described
> by others using other vocabularies. I also acknowledge Richard's point
> that 'bibframe' may not be what is typically exposed to the outside
> world. However I think there is a high risk that at this stage bibframe
> is seen as being too insular - I'm not sure if there is a solution to
> this, but I'm concerned we may lose support of those who have already
> invested time and effort in building vocabularies and describing things
> that libraries are interested in (both inside and outside the library
> community) - which I would argue are the very communities we should be
> seeking to engage.
>> Owen
>>
>> Owen Stephens
>> Owen Stephens Consulting
>> Web: http://www.ostephens.com
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Telephone: 0121 288 6936

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet