No, it is the vocabulary. As we've run into in the BibEx group (a schema.org group for bibliographic data that Jeff and I are on)[1], the vocabulary has some serious problems. In fact, I happen to think that a single vocabulary for "everything" is nonsense. I prefer, as others have suggested here, re-usable vocabularies -- especially if those are carefully designed. Presumably we need only a small number of vocabularies for information about people. Ditto for places. I see vocabs like dc, foaf and geonames to be "anchor vocabularies" -- strong but simple vocabularies around which extensions can be developed. It makes sense to me for libraries to be collaborators in the development of a finite number of anchor vocabularies that will help them interact with other communities. It's what the Semantic Web is all about - find those hooks that link your data and someone else's data. That said, I don't think that everything in library data is going to be a link to something else. It may not make sense to try to convert things like 245 $c (rest of title) into linked data. I'm beginning to think that it would not be amiss to consider descriptive cataloging as mainly a document, with some internal coding, and include linkable data ("access points" in RDA terms) that completes the bibliographic metadata. What I don't think we've considered yet is: who and what do we want to link to? and why? The W3C LLD group did come up with some use cases for library linked data, but I think we need more. kc [1] http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/XGR-lld-usecase-20111025/ On 5/23/13 11:11 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > 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. > > Jeff > >> -----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. >> >> kc >> (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 >> been >>>> 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 >> researchers, >>>> 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. >> There's >>>> 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 >> archiving >>>> 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: >> "What >>>> if schools were fully funded and the military had to hold a bake >> sale >>>> 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 >> different >>>> 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 >> to >>>> 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 >> vocab >>>> 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 >> 2s >>>> 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 >> dc >>>> (or > whatever) uses a term really matches what we're talking >> about. >>>>> 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 >> a >>>> library point of view but all of the are better than rolling our >> own. >>>>> [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 -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet