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

Re: Ideas for Recommendations for Report

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:28:25 +0100
Cc: "'Karen Coyle'" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <103BA37F-AA85-4BD3-9B01-A2700E70C0C5@deri.org>
To: "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>
If you're willing to make any personal, hypothetical comments representing only yourself as an individual, that would be useful, too, Barbara!

If not, that's ok, too!
-Jodi

On 28 Mar 2011, at 16:48, Tillett, Barbara wrote:

> I may not make a statement for the Library of Congress. - Barbara
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: Tillett, Barbara
> Cc: public-lld
> Subject: RE: Ideas for Recommendations for Report
> 
> Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>:
> 
>> 
>> I'd also love to see suggestions for a MARC replacement and that 
>> process. - bt
> 
> Barbara, can you provide a short statement about this that we could build on? I think the issues are:
> 
> - what is the logical community to take this on? (assuming not an institution but a broader coalition including semantic web folks and
> vendors)
> - can we identify a process?
> - what will libraries need to make this a reality? (not that it all can be done right away, but for the purposes of planning)
> 
> ?? There are probably other aspects that we need to cover, so anything else you -- or anyone on the list -- can think of.
> 
> kc
> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:50 PM
>> To: public-lld
>> Subject: Ideas for Recommendations for Report
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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 14:28:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 March 2011 14:29:01 GMT