Agreed.

The SchemaBibex group is having some of this discussion, and I think the 'appropriate copy' problem is one the library community can potentially bring to the table. There are no guarantees, and it could be we end up with yet another set of standards/guidelines/practices that the wider world/web doesn't care about - but I think there is an opportunity to position this so that other services can see the benefits of pushing relevant data out, and search engines can see how it can be used to enhance their services. I suspect that discussing this and coming up with proposals in the context of Schema.org is the best bet (for the moment at least) at moving this kind of work from the current niche to a more mainstream position.

I'd argue that matching resources (via descriptions) to availability to is now a more general problem than when OpenURL was conceived as the growth of subscription based services like Netflix/Kindle lending/Spotify etc. lead to the same issues. This is expressed on the SchemaBibex wiki http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Why_Extend. Also several of the use cases described are in this area - http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases#Use_case:_Describe_library_holding.2Favailability_information, alongside use cases that look at how to describe scholarly articles http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Use_Cases#Use_case:_journal_articles_and_other_periodical_publications

If we are going to see adoption, I strongly believe the outcomes we are describing have to be compelling to search engines, and their users, as well as publishers and other service providers. It would be great to get more discussion of what a compelling proposal might look like on the SchemaBibex list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-schemabibex/ or wiki http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/Main_Page

Owen


Owen Stephens
Owen Stephens Consulting
Web: http://www.ostephens.com
Email: [log in to unmask]
Telephone: 0121 288 6936

On 21 Nov 2012, at 07:37, Dave Caroline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> But... it is no good choosing a random extension if the Search engine
> is or will be blind to that particular method.
> As someone who likes to leverage SEO the "right" way so one does not
> get penalised, some standardisation  is needed.
> 
> Dave Caroline, waiting