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

Re: Ideas for Recommendations for Report

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:48:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20110330084810.18235sno5vdnvt8a@kcoyle.net>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Antoine, this is an important point... however I'm having a hard time  
putting it into a bullet point. Could you add a bullet (or a sentence  
or two) to the relevant section in the page?


Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Karen,
> I too support taking Richard's stuff onboard! When I read "syllabi"  
> below, however, I'm wondering if this is a bit too "traditional",  
> i.e., focused on bibliography. That's of course important, but when  
> I think of integrating library data into "formal" (here, academic)  
> stuff, I would have actually thought of integration of library data  
> with research data, when this research data puts library objects (or  
> other museum/archive objects) at the core of their focus. Of course  
> this would apply especially to cases when library data as part of a  
> family of LAM data which is interesting to digital humanities  
> researchers [1], but there might be other institutional groupings  
> and/or research contexts.
> But perhaps I'm now too much into the discussion on potential  
> benefits, which Ed and the others started, so I'll stop :-)
> Antoine
> [1] One concrete example we can point to is  
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Civil_War_Data_150
>> Richard, I tried to get as many of your ideas as I could into the  
>> recommendations as bullet points (I could imagine returning to your  
>> blog for some help with a more textual explanation). Take a look  
>> and see if you have other ideas that should be included. Note that  
>> I created a new section:
>> Encourage interoperability between library data and data from other sources
>> * in particular other cultural heritage communities, but not only
>> * define sharing as data exchange that will not be just libraries  
>> making their data available, but that data can flow from other  
>> communities to libraries as well
>> * include a discussion of user-provided information, from the more  
>> formal (inclusion in syllabi) to the informal (user tagging)
>> Given that LD is all about interoperability, the general concept is  
>> a given, but it seems to me that there are some particular issues  
>> with libraries in this area, so that's what I was trying to address.
>> 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 Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:48:46 UTC

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