- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:32:13 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>, Anja Jentzsch <anja@anjeve.de>
Hi, Cleaning my old mails, I realize that this mail has never been followed-up. Richard, Anja, this is just for you to know that the CKAN option--and your feedback!--was judged very interesting by everyone during our group's F2F. We've not yet made a formal decision on what we will do precisely, but that's on our menu; and please be assured we'll come back to you for some coordination in the near future :-) Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#del > On 14 Oct 2010, at 20:25, Ross Singer wrote: >> I guess the way I looked at the wiki page was to provide some context >> for the data sets we're considering relevant to publishing and >> consuming "linked library data". CKAN can provide the registry, but >> I'm not sure about how well it can provide the commentary. The >> problem, of course, is that to use the wiki to do this, duplicates a >> lot of effort. > > You could put the metadata into CKAN, and commentary+context on the wiki, with links to the CKAN packages. This would avoid duplication and would give more exposure to the CKAN packages so that readers of the wiki can go in and verify their correctness. > > I don't know how to help with your spidey sense ;-) > > Best, > Richard > > >> >> -Ross. > > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:32:20 UTC