Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> What do you mean by "suggest schema.org"?
I'm suggesting Schema.org as a cross-domain extensible vocabulary that that can be (but doesn't have to be) embedded in HTML (e.g. via Microdata <http://www.w3.org/TR/microdata/> and/or RDFa <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-lite/> attribute annotations). That same Schema.org vocabulary also happens to be suitable for “raw” serialization as RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples, JSON-LD, etc.
In terms of vocabulary, Schema.org is “extensible” via several mechanisms including mashups with other vocabularies or, ideally, direct integration into the Schema.org namespace such as we’ve seen with RNews <http://blog.schema.org/2011/09/extended-schemaorg-news-support.html> , JobPostings <http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/schemaorg-support-for-job-postings.html> , and GoodRelations <http://blog.schema.org/2012/11/good-relations-and-schemaorg.html> . This is a win/win scenario, but it requires communities to prove they can articulate a sensible set of extensions and deliver the information in that model. Within the “bibliographic” community, this is the mandate set for the http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/ group. If you are disappointed with OpenURL metadata formats, poor support for COinS, and disappointing probabilities for content resolution, here’s your chance for leveraging SEO for those purposes.
> However, the vocabulary suggested by schema.org does not have terms for
> the citation details in OpenURL COinS, including volume, issue, start
> page -- or even including both an article title and a containing
> journal title, I think.
As part of the WorldCat.org Linked Data initiative, we prototyped some basic Schema.org extensions in the http://purl.org/library namespace. These serve as proof-of-concept for the more community-based Schema Bib Extension group. The current set of “library” extensions don’t include very many journal-oriented terms like volume, issue, start page, but that’s mainly because WorldCat.org doesn’t include very much article-level data, not that these aren’t within scope of the group’s extension efforts.
> And is there any useful consuming software that will use it?
As mentioned above, the Schema.org vocabulary is fully-compatible with Linked Data/RDF, which means that Linked Data/RDF tools should be able to deal with it. I’m not familiar with any Microdata parsers, but RDFa parsers and “distiller” services are available such as http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/#distill_by_input and http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/#distribution.