Meet 20121129

From Schema Bib Extend Community Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Call 29th November 2012 - 11:00am EST


  • Comments on previous meeting
  • LoC Bibframe report - relevance to our mission?
  • Topics
  • Documenting proposals
    • Mark-up examples
  • AOB


  • Publish in wiki currently available examples from work in WorldCat and Evergreen - OCLC (Richard, Jeff, Diane) + Dan Scott - by next meeting

Call Recording

To view a recording of approx 1 hour call: Click Here
Note: will play using a WebEx browser plugin

Chat transcript from Call

From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:27:25 PM)
If we are working with "stuff published" = "stuff held in libraries", a broader consensus of non-librarians would be helpful.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:28:28 PM)
Jodi, agreed. Plus I'd like to see some format specialists - music, maps… these things really require specific expertise
From Laura Dawson to Everyone(04:29:06 PM)
As one of the few commercially-oriented in the group, I'm struggling to find a medium that libraries don't have.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:29:35 PM)
the famed ISBN enhanced teddy bears?
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:29:48 PM)
Like Laura, consumer expectation seems important to me!
From shlomo to Everyone(04:31:33 PM)
Where is BL in all this?
From Laura Dawson to Everyone(04:32:41 PM)
Re BL - no idea - I know Michael Hopwood from EDItEUR is in the group, tho
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:34:01 PM)
it makes sense to have some "common" records to look at, so starting with WC makes sense
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:34:11 PM)
at least then we are talking about the same set of data
From shlomo to Everyone(04:34:22 PM)
Getting off for 10 minutes to move from my desk to my car. 18:35 here.
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:34:31 PM)
Laura, one medium that libraries "don't do well" is serials articles
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:34:34 PM)
Jeff, some of those variants would be good to have
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:34:39 PM)
in all forms: journals, newspapers, etc.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:35:08 PM)
Ross, that's true.
From Laura Dawson to Everyone(04:35:21 PM)
Ross, true, but doesn't CrossRef do it well? Could we look at the metadata they associate with DOIs for that?
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:35:38 PM)
CrossRef is good for journals
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:35:53 PM)
/some/ journals
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:36:06 PM)
but newspapers?
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:36:08 PM)
Lots of things have DOIs these days - journal articles, data sets, figshare stuff
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:36:21 PM)
People Magazine?
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:36:24 PM)
Newspapers++ (and the many conference papers with no DOIs)
From Laura Dawson to Everyone(04:36:33 PM)
Let me guess - the metadata associated with DOIs is, ehrm, not standardized.
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:37:00 PM)
Dan, would love to see your data!
From Dan Scott to Everyone(04:37:56 PM)
Karen: cool - is a good start -- for all the good _and_ bad of our particular set of data and my hamfisted implementation :)
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:38:32 PM)
well, crossref has a standardized format
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:38:38 PM)
internally standardized, anyway
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:38:54 PM)
granted, there's invalid data in crossref… but, that's the peril of "big data"
From Laura Dawson to Everyone(04:39:06 PM)
Can we get someone at CrossRef to help?
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:39:18 PM)
+1 to getting someone from CrossRef involved
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:39:22 PM)
define "help" ;)
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:39:47 PM)
kinda leaning towards microdata, myself
From Dan Scott to Everyone(04:39:54 PM)
My default is to go with microdata to begin with, possibly RDFa Lite, as a real world example :/
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:40:09 PM)
+1 Dan
From Laura Dawson to Everyone(04:40:10 PM)
Dan, that's what I've been doing...
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:40:13 PM)
+1 Dan
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:42:00 PM)
simplistic is good
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:42:06 PM)
and a good place to start
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:42:19 PM)
we can always get complicated later
From Robina Clayphan to Everyone(04:42:24 PM)
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:43:06 PM)
we seem to have a number of folks voting for microdata
From Robina Clayphan to Everyone(04:43:52 PM)
My +1 was for Karen's sentiment
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:44:24 PM)
thanks robina :-) i think microdata is simpler in general
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:44:38 PM)
But understanding the graph shouldn't be a requirement
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:45:17 PM)
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:45:28 PM)
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:45:41 PM)
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:45:43 PM)
Ross, could you write something to the list about how to get microdata into RDF?
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:45:56 PM)
From Dan Scott to Everyone(04:45:58 PM)
FWIW, I can probably abuse my powers to serve up and as demos backed by library data (such as it is)
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:46:21 PM)
Jodi, I could probably do that
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:46:26 PM)
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:47:16 PM)
For Jeff:
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:47:39 PM)
could we get some examples for the same bib record?
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:48:02 PM)
+1 - some examples for the same bib record, and some demos of transforming between formats, should help a lot
From Jodi Schneider to Everyone(04:48:35 PM)
ah, cool, I didn't realize that Any23 took HTML5 microdata, nice! Jeff-did you see that?
From Karen Coyle to Everyone(04:49:56 PM)
we want to be operating in the real world, so actual library data, imperfect as it is, IS one of our use cases
From Dan Scott to Everyone(04:50:05 PM)
Karen: +1
From Ross Singer to Everyone(04:54:00 PM)
<- not library oriented