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 >