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

Re: Recommendations: specificity

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:02:40 +0100
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B7B6E40E-72FB-4CDB-9F29-A23730E2FAAF@deri.org>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>

On 29 Mar 2011, at 14:49, Karen Coyle wrote:

> Our recommendations so far are pretty broad in nature, and I'm wondering if we can get more specific. It seems to me that specific recommendations are more likely to be realized. At the same time, there are things we can't be specific about because we don't know the answer.
> Here's the deduplication recommendation as an example:
> Analysis for the transformation of current library data to LLD
>    * Goal: maximize the value of library data through use and re-use
>          o From records to statements
>          o From text to data
>          o Both the transformation of the data as well as the migration of systems
>    * Study LLD from an information seeker's point of view

I think this bullet needs to be expanded. I think inherent in our use cases there are some beginnings to the information seeker's perspective; this is also why I was so adamant about creating a 'social uses' cluster.

>    * Consider LLD not just as a transformation of current library data but as leading to a new vision of future library data
>    * Set priorities, or at least create criteria for prioritization (unique materials v. mass produced; unique data v. shared data)
I think there are multiple *kinds* of priorities. Some are indeed about unique vs mass produced data, and some are about sharing mechanisms.

Two sharing issues--about audience and about deduplication--occurred to me as I was reading Richard Light's post.

We need:
(1) Mechanisms to record the audience of descriptions and to deliver the appropriate description. 
Customization of records is likely to be needed for a long time into the future. Audience considerations are always important, and say, the description may depend on whether the collection is a children's book library for teachers, or a collection of children's novels for early readers. Or whether the collection is aimed at specialist astronomers or in a university general science collection.
(Besides audience this could also depend on other factors, i.e. on my mobile I'll want a brief description, yet if I have more screenspace I might want as much info as will fit.)

(2) Mechanisms for ensuring records are not overwritten or destroyed nefariously (when I think of "one catalog to rule them all" I worry about censorship becoming easier when there's only one hub for records, and how to ensure that "lots of copies keep stuff safe"). At the same time we need to avoid the many downsides which currently accompany multiplicity and duplication!


> Can we be more specific than this?
> link: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page#Analysis_for_the_transformation_of_current_library_data_to_LLD
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 14:03:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:43 UTC