In our line of work, miscellany has very little credence. Cindy Wolff On May 23, 2013, at 2:59 PM, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > We're doomed. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:57 PM >> To: Young,Jeff (OR); Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative >> Forum >> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was >> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the >> "lightweight abstraction layer") >> >> Jeff, the blog post you pointed to said: >> >> "Maybe it's time to let go of our emotional attachment to treasured old >> friends like FOAF and embrace schema.org as the vocabulary to use >> wherever possible? It won't cover everything, but it might cover the >> 50% of classes and properties that dominate any domain of interest." >> >> I prefer to use a mix of carefully-designed focused vocabularies rather >> than one that covers 50% of a mish-mosh of topics. I know that there is >> a long tail of miscellany, but that isn't a reason to treat everything >> as miscellaneous when trying to make information connections. (With >> apologies to Dave Weinberger, who has given credence to miscellany.) I >> think that there are vocabs that do a better job than schema.org in >> various areas, so I would consider schema.org as fine for SEO and a >> last resort for science, scholarly endeavors, and librarianship. >> >> kc >> >> On 5/23/13 11:45 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: >>> Schema.org doesn't claim to be a single vocabulary for everything. >> Hence the long tail. >>> >>> http://philarcher.org/diary/2012/danbri/long_tail.png >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:41 PM >>>> To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum >>>> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR) >>>> Subject: Re: [BIBFRAME] re-using existing properties (was >>>> http://bibframe.org/documentation/bibframe-authority/ and the >>>> "lightweight abstraction layer") >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> -- >> Karen Coyle >> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >