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

Re: Use case notes page - Collection-level description?

From: <gordon@gordondunsire.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:38:32 +0000 (GMT)
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <161833104.380018.1292578712758.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxltgw02.schlund.de>
Antoine:


Access is governed at two levels of granularity: the collection, and the item in
the collection. Ideally, as you point out in relation to Europeana, the access
attributes should be assigned at the item level. This is a trivial task in a
machine-readable catalogue, provided each item is assigned to a collection. But
practice varies widely ;-) - libraries have different ways of organizing their
items in collections, and there is no agreed set of attributes that can be used
at item-level.  Libraries typically scope collections of non-print materials on
the intermediation device required (the audio-cassette collection, the CD-ROM
collection, etc.), while print materials are often organised according to their
lending status (reference only, short loan, standard loan, etc.). Online digital
items are often presented as collections with a common license, especially when
they are processed as a single collection for subscription/payment purposes.
This reinforces the idea that access attributes should be at item level when
metadata for collections from different libraries are aggregated.



But most libraries would find it strange to assign the opening hours of the
library as an attribute to all items of lendable physical collections; it is
easier to think of this at collection-level.
 
Of course, some access attributes are applicable to physical items but not to
digital items. But the overlap can be surprising: the physical size of an item
can be an access factor (I can't fit the 10 volumes into my briefcase), but so
can the file size of a digital item (it's too big to fit on my USB stick). On
the other hand, attributes that appear general may not, in practice, apply to
physical items - very few physical items in a library are subject to licensing
restrictions on being borrowed, for example.
 
In short, the more we think about this, the more there is to discuss in the
context of linked data. All contributions are welcome!
 
Cheers
 
Gordon

 

On 17 December 2010 at 09:06 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Jodi, Gordon,
>
> Good points, and thanks for volunteering. It's not because these access cases
> are already becoming real that we should forget them!
>
> By the way I have a question re. the general direction the name
> "collection-level description" is suggesting. Isn't it too wide a
> generalization? Ideally, when you want to find an physical book in a library,
> the information that's it's on loan as an individual item is crucial.
> Similarly, for scenarios where access conditions to digital material is
> granted, individual rights statements are often a key enabler.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
> PS: in fact my awareness of these things happened to grow significantly the
> past weeks. In Europeana we're currently getting quite general rights
> information at collection-level, but we are now starting to work really hard
> to convince providers that one day they could send precise data for each
> individual object, if they have them of course. If you need it, I may
> contribute one or two statements and/or (dreamed) examples on this for your
> cluster...
>
>
> > On 16 Dec 2010, at 20:54, gordon@gordondunsire.com wrote:
> >
> >> Jodi
> >>
> >> The second of these (closest collection) should be folded into Library
> >> Address Data use case, which is not clustered.
> >
> > Yes--that makes sense. I want to see this data mashed up in new ways (e.g. a
> > mashup between TripIt/Dopplr, my calendar of availability, and my
> > LibraryThing wishlist -- alerting me to possibilities to use items I can't
> > get locally when I'm out-of-town). :)
> >
> >> This is part of the general area of collection-level description
> >
> > Right--and I've been really influenced by SCONE work in that area. :)
> >
> >> which I think will intersect with high-level provenance issues and
> >> (low-level) individual real-world objects (aka circulation control),
> >
> >> in an LLD context. It also intersects, as you suggest in the third of your
> >> proposed use-cases, with the general area of availability/access. Access
> >> restrictions tend to be at the collection level (opening hours, loan
> >> period, intermediation tool required for format, licenses, user ability,
> >> etc.).
> >>
> >> The specific issue of finding digital manifestations is already covered by
> >> the Open Library Data use case, part of the Bibliographic Data cluster.
> >
> >>
> >> Perhaps we could cluster your second and third proposed use cases with the
> >> submitted Library Address Data use case, and focus on  availability/access
> >> at the collection level? I'd be happy to collaborate ...
> >
> > That sounds really good to me! Talk to you about it next year, Gordon!
> >
> > -Jodi
> >
> >>
> >> But not until the new year!
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >> Gordon
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16 December 2010 at 16:14 Jodi Schneider<jodi.schneider@deri.org> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I see the need for these 3 use cases:
> >>>
> >>> * Link Social Bibliography to a Bibliographic Network
> >>> * Find materials in the closest physical collection (may include library
> >>> and non-library collections)
> >>> * Find e-books or other digital materials, according to access
> >>> restrictions (e.g. free, available in my geographic locale, etc)
> >>>
> >>> Would anyone like to collaborate on writing these use cases? Or can you
> >>> suggest other groups that we might might write them?
> >>>
> >>> -Jodi
> >>>
> >>> On 11 Nov 2010, at 17:32, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Jodi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks. So you think that these items should definitely covered by more
> >>>> use cases? I was actually not sure that this was the case... Perhaps we
> >>>> have in fact already some cases for them, I just did not have the time to
> >>>> dive into what they were describing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Antoine
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I added 4 items to the 'things that should be covered by use cases' from
> >>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=UseCaseNotes&oldid=2128<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=UseCaseNotes&oldid=2128>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     * *Link Social Bibliography to a Bibliographic Network*. Link
> >>>>>reviews, tags, lists, cover art to a work. /This seems like a variation
> >>>>>on the enrich a record use case./
> >>>>>     * *Find stuff in several collections*.Searching a specific set of
> >>>>>library and non-library collections--for instance to find a given book or
> >>>>>DVD, or get access to an article. I'm thinking about this first as a
> >>>>>local area search with a specific set of libraries--but then also as a
> >>>>>'travel' awareness search (for the harder-to-find things I'm willing to
> >>>>>go out of my way to find, while travelling). I'd love, for instance, a
> >>>>>mashup between TripIt/Dopplr, my calendar of availability, and my
> >>>>>LibraryThing wishlist -- alerting me to possibilities to use items I
> >>>>>can't get locally when I have a free day out-of-town. Jodi
> >>>>>Schneider<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/User:Jschneid4> 
> >>>>>13:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC) /It seems that we don't have any such
> >>>>>far-stretching case. Or this item rather calling for enabling mesh-ups,
> >>>>>not doing them? (Antoine)/
> >>>>>     * *Find e-books* see
> >>>>>http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/2010/07/finding-ebooks.html
> >>>>>     * archives and linked data, knitting together multiple
> >>>>>identifiers<http://inkdroid.org/journal/2010/08/12/archival-context-on-the-web/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can expand with more detail if it's helpful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Jodi
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11 Nov 2010, at 10:38, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've started some clean-up of
> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseNotes
> >>>>>> hoping that pretty soon we could just remove it from [1], as part of an
> >>>>>> attempt to have [2] as only one list of things that should motivate our
> >>>>>> searching for new cases.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not yet dead, though. Feedback is welcome from these who created
> >>>>>> the non-deleted items: please declare them as dead of move them to [2]!
> >>>>>> We could discuss them in a next call whether we're interested enough to
> >>>>>> include them in the list we agreed upon at the F2F...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Antoine
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCases#Related_topics.2C_are_these_covered_yet.3F
> >>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/F2F_Pittsburgh_Outcomes#Things_that_should_be_covered_by_use_cases
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 09:39:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 December 2010 09:39:09 GMT