On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Which brings me to .... I've been involved in various groups that have
> members who are championing a particular set of information resources that
> they care deeply about -- often segments of academic publishing. They create
> metadata schemas that work great for their area of interest but they often
> think that it's just a matter of extending that metadata to cover other
> interests. I don't think it works that way, or at least that's not the best
> way to do things. I look at BIBO,[1] which has no elements for sound or
> movie materials, and that lists "map" as a form of illustration.

For the record, BIBO doesn't need to have elements for sound materials
(it has elements for movies:  bibo:Film, bibo:director,
bibo:performer, etc.), because other vocabularies can fit the bill.
For sound recordings, there is the very extensive Music Ontology:

http://musicontology.com/

Certainly BIBO's treatment of film is sparse, but that's because BIBO
is only defining as much as needed for a citation.  The most important
thing it's doing is defining the RDF:type "Film" - that way we know
what it is.  Some other ontology should go into more domain-specific
"film" description.  It would be out of scope for BIBO.

I realize that's an unsatisfying statement, especially since there
there seem to be no real established Film-based RDF vocabularies, but
it's important realize that it's not a failure (or a responsibility)
of BIBO that it's lacking here.

-Ross.