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

Re: Review of the "Available Vocabularies and Datasets" section

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:10:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4E05FA4A.3090204@few.vu.nl>
To: public-lld@w3.org
Hi Alex,

Thanks a lot for the review, and the recommendations!
That should lead to useful clarifications. The datasets vs. value vocabulary issue, which has been also noted in other reviews, may require some more discussion...
We'll come back to you in the coming weeks with some concrete answers.

Cheers,

Antoine


> Hi,
>
> first of all, I really like this section - good work guys!
> I only have three little comments which maybe could improve the
> understanding.
>
> After the announcement of the RDA implementation decision in the US I
> would appreciate to highlight the RDA element sets as an example for
> metadata element sets.
>
>   I am not really good with listing GeoNames as value vocabulary.
> GeoNames is an pretty complex dataset - just see the offer of premium
> data access. In the report we say value vocabularies focus: "on the
> management of discrete value/label literals for use in metadata
> records". This conflicts with my understanding of the GeoName approach
> and maybe confuse readers.
>
> Regarding metadata element sets for libraries I am missing one or two
> sentences which recommend a coordinated use of element sets at least in
> the community - without naming particular element sets. Out of my point
> of view it's difficult to establish union catalogs like VIAF if every
> institution forges own new element sets. VIAF is this successful because
> all institutions provide for the match&  merge processes similar
> datasets (currently in MARC 21). I reckon in middle- and long-term
> library committees should give recommendations for the re-use of
> established linked data element sets for particular entity descriptions.
> I'm in fear that we otherwise remove again from interoperability and
> internationalization approaches. You touch this subject already in the
> "Linking" section, maybe we should more emphasize this issue in here.
>
> Best, alex
>
Received on Saturday, 25 June 2011 15:07:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 25 June 2011 15:07:13 GMT