W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Use case template -- user needs

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:53:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5695B4.10104@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
  
>
> All
>
> My silence is general agreement, although there are perhaps different
> ways of categorising the FR users tasks/needs within the dimensions. But
> I don't think that would make much practical difference, and the current
> taxonomy is fit for purpose.
>
> Karen (post-this) is right to say that the FR models are somewhat
> siloed, although it should be pointed out that they have, over time,
> taken into account the museum (e.g. FRBRoo) and archive (e.g. FRAD)
> communities. I think there may be two main causes for any silos, which
> this group should bear in mind:
>
> 1. The classic Libraryland environment begins with the FRBR
> Manifestation, a finished product of the publishing industry (or
> manuscript). It is only recently that pre-manifestation metadata has
> become important - publisher metadata can be copied and recast to save
> cataloguer time, but this has only become generally feasible as a result
> of initiatives such as ONIX, the RDA/ONIX Framework, and, indeed, the
> linked-data movement. The FR family is also focussed on user tasks which
> consume metadata; the generation and maintenance of metadata by users,
> professionals, or machines has been out-of-scope (the FRAD stuff about
> agencies, rules, and controlled access points might spill over, but the
> focus is on how these affect the metadata content).
>
> 2. Libraries operate in the real-world. They have customers (lots of
> them) with expectations (changing, of course, but mostly legacy); they
> are funded by real organisations and real money (never enough). The
> funders have their own expectations. As a result, libraries tend to be
> conservative. They also tend to be cautious, having been burned on
> numerous occasions in the past by "new technology" (but they know that
> such technology is their saviour). It's messy, illogical, and, in the UK
> at least, gets consistently high approval ratings by customers (the
> public taxpayers). Needless to say, these factors vary from country to
> country and culture to culture - so IFLA and other
> national/international library collaboration on standards and models is,
> relatively-speaking, outstanding and as good-as-it-gets.


Thanks for the refresher, Gordon, that's indeed very useful to keep that in mind, and gives a further motivation for http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics#Community_and_Management_Issues


  
> Something missing from the Dimensions is any hint of institutional
> repositories (and therefore Dublin Core); these are within scope, as, in
> the UK at least, their metadata is often maintained or
> quality-controlled by libraries.


Feel free to add it at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Dimensions as you see fit. Would it fall under "Non library information systems"?

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Monday, 2 August 2010 09:54:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 August 2010 09:54:26 GMT