Print

Print


I think Karen is on the right track when she writes "I prefer to use a 
mix of carefully-designed focused vocabularies rather than one that 
covers 50% of a mish-mosh of topics." The problem I see is that BIBFRAME 
is in danger of being a "50% of mish-mosh" by ignoring 
carefully-designed focused vocabularies like FOAF, Open Annotation, etc..

Cheers,
Simeon

On 5/23/13 2:59 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) 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
>