Is it the vocabulary that is inconsistent or reality itself? The world is a messy place that evolves over time, as will our vocabulary. Schema.org is designed for common sense. A person is a person, a book is a book, an event is an event, etc. It's true that common sense breaks down beyond a certain level, but it's absurd to think we can skip over common sense as a 1st step.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> Jeff, unfortunately schema.org is one of the worst ontologies I've ever
> seen for inconsistency, a single, narrow views. I hope it does NOT
> become the main ontology, at least not without some huge revision.
> (note: the blog post proposes schema.org as our future "OoE" - Ontology
> of Everything.)
> On 5/23/13 9:49 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> > Regarding FOAF and "Testing status", I thought this blog from awhile
> back rang true:
> > http://philarcher.org/diary/2012/danbri/
> > Jeff
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:41 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> >> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> >> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> >> Nate, what this says to me is that we need to work more
> >> collaboratively with others. This is what I hoped would come out of
> >> the NISO Bib Framework meeting (but unfortunately did not). I've
> >> very frustrated with foaf - so much potential, and yet so
> >> un-realized. And it isn't being very actively developed anymore. So
> >> we can either roll our own, OR try to find a way to collaborate on
> >> standards for the Web, not standards for the library community only.
> >> If we were, for example, a community of flat worm neuron
> >> it might make sense to develop our own ontology with little direct
> >> interaction with that of others. But the data that libraries will
> >> create is by definition not exclusive to the library use case -- our
> >> metadata describes people, intellectual resources, places, events,
> >> time periods.
> >> These are about as close to universal concepts as you'll get.
> >> probably nothing in our data that shouldn't be linking to someone
> >> else's information somewhere.
> >> It makes me cringe a bit when I hear it, but it has been suggested
> >> that libraries are the logical organizations to take on the
> >> and perhaps even maintenance of key ontologies. I know we don't have
> >> the funding for that and I am reminded of the poster that read:
> >> if schools were fully funded and the military had to hold a bake
> >> to buy an airplane?"
> >> So I agree, Nate, with your assessment -- that we can't risk using
> >> ontologies that can change arbitrarily. But we could potentially
> >> become partners in those ontologies, just as libraries from
> >> countries have become partners in MARC21 and BIBFRAME. Dividing the
> >> world at libraries/not-libraries is the problem. Well, the crux of
> >> the problem is that we'd have to hold a bake sale to get the $$ and
> >> staffing to be participants, and even that wouldn't cover it.
> >> *aaaarrrrggghhh!*
> >> kc
> >> On 5/23/13 8:39 AM, Trail, Nate wrote:
> >>> If you adopt someone else's terms, you are stuck with their
> >> definitions, and if they decide to change them, you have to revisit
> >> your decision: a constant maintenance headache.
> >>> The foaf vocab is in Testing status, version 0.98. Are they going
> >> change it before it comes out? Who knows? Will they add something
> >> better like foaf:sortName that is more like a traditional library
> >> listing?
> >>> Just coming up with a list of all the possible terms out there and
> >> fighting over whether they are close enough to use for each term we
> >> have will be a major use of time.
> >>> On DC, people you might not be for it, but if we opened the BF
> >> up, there might be a lot of clamor for it; it's so simple and it's
> >> all over the place!
> >>> Nate
> >>> PS I had a good laugh about the Unicode and ISO 639 "roll our own
> >> comment". I'm working right now on developing a computer that uses
> >> and 3s instead of 1s and 0s.
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: stuart yeates [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 5:31 PM
> >>> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum
> >>> Cc: Trail, Nate
> >>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was
> >>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the
> >>> "lightweight abstraction layer")
> >>> On 23/05/13 05:25, Trail, Nate wrote:
> >>>> I think when you start reusing existing properties, you're relying
> >> on
> >>>> them being around for the long haul, and requiring systems that
> >>>> consume them to be aware of all the multiple namespaces.
> >>> The "syntactic sugar" option used by
> >> madsrdf:hasCloseExternalAuthority does not introduce a new namespace
> >> from the users' point of view. The syntactic sugar can even be kept
> >> in a separate RDF file from the definition of the bibframe
> >> properties, making it second class and invisible to everyone who
> doesn't want it.
> >>> > In all cases, I can't
> >>> > see us (the library community) agreeing that the way foaf or
> >> (or > whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking
> >>> Following that arguement we should also walk away from ISO 639, ISO
> >> 3166, RFC 3986, Unicode and so forth. None of them are perfect from
> >> library point of view but all of the are better than rolling our
> >>> [For the record I'm not suggestion using dc / Dublincore.]
> >>> cheers
> >>> stuart
> >>> --
> >>> Stuart Yeates
> >>> Library Technology Services http://www.victoria.ac.nz/library/
> >> --
> >> Karen Coyle
> >> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >> skype: kcoylenet
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet