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

Proposal for restructuring the final deliverables

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:47:32 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110803184732.GA5099@julius>
Dear all,

Is has been (and continues to be) very helpful to use the Reviewer Assignment
page to collect references to comments received [1].  I felt that in addition
it would be helpful to see these references side-by-side with comments received
in the blog, so I created a parallel page, DraftReportReviews, by
cutting-and-pasting from the blog [2].  If we were still receiving alot of
comments, I would propose that we use one or the other (but not both).  But
with the current volume of comments it will be easy to occasionally update [2]
from [1] using wiki diffs.

On a Skype call today, the "Issues and Recommendations" sub-group discussed
revisions to its sections in light of comments received.  Since a number of the
comments proposed substantial changes to the tone, level of detail, and
organization of these sections, Karen has forked both pages [3,4] -- these
revised pages will be on tomorrow's agenda.

The group also discussed a proposal for restructuring the final deliverables as
a whole.  We noted that while praising the quality and usefulness of the more
technical sections of the report -- Available Vocabularies and Datasets [5] and
Relevant Technologies [6] -- several reviewers felt that the technical detail
and jargon was too heavy for a report which aims at convincing non-technical
decision makers.

We propose that the report in its current state [3] be split into two separate
deliverables aimed at two significantly different audiences:

-- Deliverable 1 (title something like "Benefits of Library Linked Data, with 
   Recommendations") for an audience of decision-makers:

   Executive summary
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ExecutiveSummary
   Scope
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits#.22Library_Linked_Data.22:_Scope_of_this_report
   Methodology
   -- A 2- or 3-paragraph section, yet to be written, which points to and summarizes
      the other two deliverables -- "Technologies, Vocabularies, Datasets" and "Use Cases"
      (see below).
   Benefits
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits
   Current Situation (was: "Implementation Challenges and Barriers to Adoption")
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page_take2
   Recommendations
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page_take2

-- Deliverable 2 (title something like "Available Technologies, Vocabularies, and 
   Datasets for Library Linked Data") for a more technical audience:

   Available Vocabularies and Datasets - an overview
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
   Snapshot of available vocabularies and datasets - in detail
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
   Relevant Technologies
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies

-- Deliverable 3 "Use Cases for Library Linked Data"
   http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport

It looks to me like the first deliverable would end up being about eight pages
long -- a nice length, in my opinion, for something which we would like to 
see widely distributed and read.  The second and third deliverables could be of
arbitrary length.

We feel that separating technical presentation from strategic benefits and
recommendations would solve a number of problems identified by the reviewers.
Combining the two documents on vocabularies and datasets -- the longer list
and shorter summary prepared for the main report -- might actually make it 
easier for its authors to finalize that deliverable as there would be no 
particular need to rewrite sections with the requirement that all technical
topics be described in terms that the technically less-expert readers
of the Recommendations report would understand.

Finally, we felt that it would be desirable to describe, in the Recommendations
report, the methodology followed by the XG -- collection of use cases,
collection of pointers to technologies and vocabularies, etc -- and, ideally,
to summarize the nature of the use cases collected in a few bullet points.

For discussion tomorrow...
Tom (and Jodi, Karen, Gordon, and Peter)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportReviewerAssignments
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportReviews
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page_take2
[4] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page_take2
[5] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
[7] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 18:48:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 August 2011 18:48:14 GMT