Print

Print


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