[esip-semantictech] Working towards science-on-schema.org as an ESIP Standard/Guideline

[Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)]

Hi Adam and Ruth,
Responses inline, please read to the bottom as I’ve replied to both Adam and Ruth. Thank you

From: Ruth Duerr <ruth.duerr3 at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 18, 2019 at 8:23 AM
To: Adam Shepherd <ashepherd at whoi.edu>
Cc: "Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M)" <Lewis.J.McGibbney at jpl.nasa.gov>, "esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org" <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>
Subject: Re: [esip-semantictech] Working towards science-on-schema.org as an ESIP Standard/Guideline

Hi All,

I heartedly agree with the concept of having the schema.org<http://schema.org> guidelines endorsed by ESIP.  Having the citation guidelines endorsed by ESIP spurred change in agencies and eventually the world; so personally I think that doing this will drive change in a positive way.


Yes, this is an excellent example.

I also like Adam’s 3 actions, though I note that the result of #1 doesn’t have to be too formal.  The citation guidelines model is simply that when they get out of date enough that someone has a strong enough desire or need to fix them and drums up support for that in the data stewardship committee, it happens….  In that case, through teleconferences with interested parties (in this case they are weekly).  That way all the sticking points get rigorous and focussed discussion in a condensed period of time.

I agree here and this is not a sticking point. It would be my suggestion that we review and possibly clone the existing schema.org documentation for community working behavior (we refer to it a governance) - https://schema.org/docs/howwework.html


On Jan 18, 2019, at 10:32 AM, Adam Shepherd via esip-semanticweb <esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org<mailto:esip-semanticweb at lists.esipfed.org>> wrote:

Hi folks,
I agree with Lewis that working towards an ESIP-blessed output (such as the Citation Guideline) is a good idea for the schema.org<http://schema.org/> guidelines (https://github.com/ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org) that came out of EarthCube's Project 418. If an ESIP-blessed guideline is one of our committee's shared goals, then I offer a couple of strategic actions we might focus on to achieve that goal:

·         Agreement on a governance framework for making updates to the guidelines. (I know...as a developer, I hate this part too. But I believe even if we spent a few moments documenting how we will make decisions, update the guidelines, and procedures/workflows for discussing ideas, it can help us down the road as all of our capabilities to volunteer effort ebb and flow. We could keep it simple an adopt existing governance strategies, and alter it as we move forward.) A peek at the TWC Semantic Web Methodology (https://tw.rpi.edu/web/doc/TWC_SemanticWebMethodology) might help us think about how we plan to govern the guidelines.

Can you review the schema.org link (https://schema.org/docs/howwework.html) and see if there is anything you would add or take away? Personally, I think there is loads we could take away which would enable us to merely reference certain parts of the schema.org working practice. This would refine our governance structure in a bid to keep it minimal.

  *   A review of the current documentation to ensure that what happened in a short, tiny vacuum of P418 is best for the community.
In my opinion this is the most important aspect of the work. I suggest it should be accompanied by a parallel drive for adoption by a wider group of data providers.

  *   Work towards improving how we communicate these guidelines to the public. Bioschemas.org<http://bioschemas.org/> is a good example of what we could achieve for the geosciences as an external extension to schema.org<http://schema.org/>. Having external extensions published with consistent URLs that follow the Best Practices for Publishing RDF Vocabularies (https://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/) akin to what schema.org<http://schema.org/> does (https://schema.org/docs/developers.html).
I have some suggestions here. Let’s consider the following

  *   Join the W3C schema.org community group (https://www.w3.org/community/schemaorg/) and announce our intention to propose a earthsci.schema.org extension based upon https://github.com/ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org
  *   Get in touch with the RDA discovery group Beth mentioned and pitch the idea of jointly developing a earthsci.schema.org extension.
  *   Gauge feedback from both of the above
  *   From that feedback, determine what to do next e.g. whether to go ahead with addressing Adam’s #1 and #2 within ESIP or somewhere else. Personally, I would think a step in the right direction would be for both RDA discovery and ESIP SemTech communities to join forces over on the W3C schema.org community group and agree on whether we wish to propose a hosted or community extension to schema.org.
  *   Once we are informed enough to determine the working community, the ESIP SemTech committee can go ahead with proposing formal ESIP guidelines on how federation members should adopt earthsci.schema.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.esipfed.org/pipermail/esip-semanticweb/attachments/20190124/2e38621b/attachment-0001.html>