W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Review of "Implementation challenges and barriers to adoption"

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:48:52 +0100
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>, Peter Murray <peter.murray@lyrasis.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Gordon Dunsire <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Message-Id: <17C84767-3E07-4E21-B902-8A31AD88D2BF@deri.org>
Thanks again for these comments, Ray! I've been asked to reflect them in the wiki. Here's the diff:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_issues_page&diff=5119&oldid=5110

Ray's remaining comments, pasted below, suggest particular places where further changes may be needed (or where rationale for large deletions is given). I've merely added or deleted the text, without addressing the comments.

-Jodi

[ general comment:: There should be an attempt to normalize the use of the expression “linked library data” and its variants, including “linked data in libraries”, “library linked data” and also to normalize case (upper or lower).  Similarly for “linked data” case should be normalized. [rd1] 

 [“conservatism” is a loaded term[rd2] 

 IFLA has been a thought-leader in this area, but there is still a need to use their work to provide functional systems and software. I can’t make sense of the preceding clause.[rd3]

These latter systems are more likely to use mainstream technologies for data creation and management, but they do not represent the primary holdings of the library. I don’t quite understand this clause.[rd4] 

The following paragraph is perhaps a separate barrier, or perhaps a non-sequitur.[rd6]  RDA is a standard ofdeveloped by four Anglo-American library communities, and has not had international acceptance, although it is being studied widely. LLD standards associated with RDA are still in the process of development. Through a joint working group with DCMI, the Joint Steering Committee for RDA approved an RDF implementation of the properties and value vocabularies of RDA. These have not yet been moved to production status and are not integrated with the primary documentation and cataloguer tools in the RDAToolkit.

 (i.e. "rough consensus and running code").   That’s too IETF oriented. It is not a W3C  philosophy.  [rd8] 

Bottom-up standards can be successful but garner little recognition

  perhaps this heading is un-necessary and this section can  be merged into the previous section.[rd9] 

 I don’t know if METS and Dublin Core can be considered “bottom up” initiatives. [rd10] [rd11]

Library systems require technical staff with specific expertise in library data

Maintaining these systems is also expensive and cumbersome, since personnel specifically trained in library data are also required for day-to-day system operations. For an example of the interpretative understanding of MARC required from IT staff, see Jason Thomale, Interpreting MARC: Where’s the Bibliographic Data?, Code4Lib Journal Issue 11, 2010-09-21.

Preceding section does not seem relevant.[rd13] 

Rights ownership can be simple   

Some bibliographic data may never have been shared with another party, so rights may be exclusively held by the creating agency. Examples of this are when the data is in a non-standard format which is difficult to share, when the data pertains to a collection of unique materials, and when the data pertains to materials in which no-one else is apparently interested.

Edits here are:  deleted the above heading, and moved the first sentence to the beginning of the next section.  Deleted the rest of the section because I don’t think it is relevant to the theme and because the result seems much more coherent.[rd15] 

These records may be subsequently re-aggregated I’m not sure “re-aggregated” is the term you want here. Perhaps “incorporated” [rd14] into the catalogues of regional, national, and international consortia. 

Some coded data fields are used in MARC records, but there is not a clear incentive to include these in all records, since most coded data fields are not used in library system functions. and therefore. therefore what?

There has been  Pprogress is being made in the area of defining value vocabularies that are currently in used in libraries.  Do we instead mean “formally publishing value vocabularies for those that have been used only in an ad hoc manner by libraries”[rd16] . 

On 20 Jun 2011, at 13:19, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

> I was assigned to review the section of the report "Implementation
> challenges and barriers to adoption"
> (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Imple
> mentation_challenges_and_barriers_to_adoption). 
> 
> My comments and suggestions are at:
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/w3clld/
> 
> (Please don't attach any significance to the location of this page - in the
> SRU site - it is simply a matter of convenience.)
> 
> --Ray Denenberg
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:05 PM
>> To: Denenberg, Ray
>> Cc: Tom Baker; Manue
>> Subject: W3C Library Linked Data XG - request for review
>> 
>> Dear Ray,
>> 
>> We are contacting you as a member of the W3C Library Linked Data
>> Incubator Group (LLD XG) to request your help in reviewing the draft
>> deliverables of the XG, which need to be published in final form by the
>> end of August.
>> 
>> Specifically, we would appreciate if you could read the section of the
>> report called "Implementation challenges and barriers to adoption" [1].
>> Getting the arguments in this section of the report right will be key
>> to the success of the deliverable as a whole.  You can see the section
>> in the context of the draft report as a whole at [2].
>> 
>> It would be very helpful to the work of the group if you could post
>> comments to the public-lld mailing list [3] -- if possible by Monday,
>> 20 June.  If you are able to do this, please drop us a line so that we
>> can plan accordingly (or find an alternative reviewer).  If you have
>> additional or alternative reviewers to suggest, please let us know!
>> 
>> We want to ensure that the deliverables reflect the rough consensus of
>> the XG members as a whole, so any input you could offer at this stage
>> would be most valuable.
>> 
>> Many thanks and best regards,
>> 
>> Antoine Isaac, Emmanuelle Bermes and Tom Baker Co-Chairs, W3C Library
>> Linked Data Incubator Group
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
>> [2]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#I
>> mplementation_challenges_and_barriers_to_adoption
>> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2011 17:49:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 June 2011 17:49:27 GMT