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

Re: LLD topics list

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:57:34 -0700
Message-ID: <20100713105734.z7bmob2uww8kskok@kcoyle.net>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi Karen,
> Continuing on the discussion we had re. the re-organized "LDD topics"
> list you created at [1] (cf. [2]).
> I think there is a question that we did not answer:
>> <kcoyle> should topics3 become topics?
> When I created my own try at [3] I had opted for creating a new page,
> not to mess up with efforts of other people on the XG (either adding
> topics, or working on the use case template that refers to the LLD
> topics).
> But now that everyone has been made aware of the new structure, I think
> we should just keep /wiki/topics as our reference.
> In case someone wants to refer to the previous structure, it is still
> possible to use [4]!

I was thinking of leaving 2 and 3, creating #1 out of what is  
currently at topics, and copying topics3 to topics. does that sound  

> On the content of the list itself, which is indeed much clearer than
> the previous (spontaneous) organization, I'd have two
> comments/questions:
> - I have some trouble understanding why there is a section on
> "Conceptual Models and KOS" which is not in the "Applying SW to LD"
> one. Is it that you really want 2 analysis paths, one rather separate
> from linked data implementation issues ("These models do not determine
> particular technologies"), and the other one only concerned with
> implementation?
> Both headers have similar SKOS items below them. This makes the
> distinction quite blurred for me. This, and the fact that maybe I
> prefer to see every problem from an implementation perspective anyway
> :-)

This is the difference between "what" and "how". You might want to  
look at the Singapore Framework [1] for a vision of the steps and  
stages. I'm think that this work is about clarifying and perfecting  
the domain model and functional requirements.

It is *quite* possible that there are some things in that first  
category that do not belong, and therefore we should move them. I do  
feel strongly, however, that we should be very clear about what we  
want to model before any implementation begins.

> - is there a clear motivation for having items on "Use of Identifiers"
> (once in "SW environmental issues", once in "Applying SW to library
> data"). This could be confusing. Based on what you write for these two
> sections, I understand that the items in "Applying SW to LLD" regards
> the use of identifiers in a way really specific to library data. While
> the other identifiers concerns can apply in other (non-library) domains
> as well.
> Is that right? In that case wouldn't "namespace policies" belong to the
> more general (non-library specific) category?
> Or is it in fact an item for which you are expecting some
> clarification, as discussed for the action [5]?

I think that the folks that contributed these short and possibly  
cryptic statements should feel free to move them if they are in the  
wrong sections. :-). There was a lot of guess-work in gathering the  
statements into areas, and I may have mis-interpreted what the  
contributors intended. Consider this only a first pass at organization.


[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/singapore-framework/

> Cheers,
> Antoine
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics3
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/07/08-lld-minutes.html#item07
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics2
> [4]   
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Topics&oldid=226
> [5]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/07/08-lld-minutes.html#action08

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 17:58:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:54 UTC