 |
 |
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.