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

Re: Ideas for Recommendations for Report

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:07:01 -0700
Message-ID: <20110325090701.941852k6q0w83put@kcoyle.net>
To: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Excellent, Richard, and I second Ed's comments about extending our  
view to a larger cultural heritage community. I'll work your  
suggestions into the draft bullet points as best I can.

I brought up the issue of users on one of the group conference calls  
and the agreement (as I recall it) was that users will be emphasized  
in the benefits section. Once that is fleshed out, we may need to look  
at other sections to see where user issues/benefits/etc. can be  
brought out. I don't know if it is possible, but beginning with the  
user, as FRBR did, provides a strong motivation for the effort. So  
that discussion should help us surface user benefits.

The redundancy *problem* is something that I think will be worked out,  
but initially there will be many different "copies" of the same thing  
(author, book info, vocabulary) all with different identifiers. It  
will happened as we "dump" our legacy data into LD space. The mass of  
data should allow us to use computation to resolve some questions of  
"is this the same?" Over time, like things will be brought together,  
yet there will be "cruft." I guess that sums up my philosophy: there  
will be cruft. And we shouldn't let it hold us back.

kc

Quoting Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>:

>
> Hi,
>
> I've been lurking on this list for a while, thinking about the  
> various debates, and this call for comments has helped spur me into  
> some sort of action. I've put the thoughts which come to the front  
> of my mind here:
>
> http://light.demon.co.uk/wordpress/?p=91
>
> Comments on my comments are welcome.
>
> Richard
>
> In message <20110324165012.753293kdl33zejec@kcoyle.net>, Karen Coyle  
> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> writes
>> The working group has fleshed out text on the issues that have been  
>> identified around LLD, and now wants to gather ideas for  
>> recommendations that the report can make. Recommendations can be at  
>> various levels from general to specific, and it would be good to  
>> have a number of proposals that could result in gains in the short  
>> term.
>>
>> We assume that the recommendations will evolve out of the issues.  
>> At the high level, the issues we have identified are:
>>
>>   * 1.1 Linked Data is an emerging technology
>>   * 1.2 Library data is expressed in library-specific formats that  
>> cannot be easily shared outside the library community
>>   * 1.3 The library standards process is highly top-down and non-agile
>>   * 1.4 Current library data practices are expensive (and the true  
>> costs are unmeasured)
>>   * 1.5 Library ecosystem is designed for stability and resists change
>>   * 1.6 Library data may have rights issues that prevent open publication
>>
>> Each section has a fair amount of detail.
>>
>> As a first pass, the general categories for recommendations are:
>>
>>   * 2.1 Identify costs of current practices, and costs and ROI to  
>> moving to LLD
>>   * 2.2 Identify issues for migration to LLD, both technical,  
>> managerial, and intellectual
>>   * 2.3 Identify areas where existing library community standards  
>> and Semantic Web standards require extension or development to  
>> support LLD
>>   * 2.4 Identify tools that are needed to support the creation and  
>> use of LLD
>>   * 2.5 Analysis for the transformation of current library data to LLD
>>         o 2.5.1 Deduplication
>>   * 2.6 Cultivate a research and development environment
>>   * 2.7 Create educational opportunities
>>   * 2.8 Include metadata design in library and information science education
>>   * 2.9 Foster a discussion about open data and rights
>>
>> We expect there to be iteration between the issues and the  
>> recommendations as we work on this, so if you have a recommendation  
>> with no issue, or vice-versa, please send it in.
>>
>> We are asking committee members and anyone else who wishes to begin  
>> to fill out points in the recommendations area. (We'll turn it into  
>> text as part of the editing process, so short bullets are ok if  
>> they make sense.) If you do not have edit access to the wiki, you  
>> can air your recommendations on this list and we'll gather them. Of  
>> course, discussion is encouraged. This is the real meat of our  
>> report and all ideas are welcome.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
>>
>
> -- 
> Richard Light
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 16:07:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 March 2011 16:07:39 GMT