Re: Proposal for restructuring the final deliverables

I like this part:
Metadata element sets like Dublin Core, the RDA elements, SKOS or FOAF;
Value vocabularies such as LCSH, AGROVOC, VIAF, DDC and GeoNames;
specific Datasets, e.g., the British National Bibliography, the catalogue of the Hungarian national library, the Open Library, CrossRef, Europeana. @@TODO: lists can be adapted of course@@
It's definitely going in the right direction, Antoine!!

I now agree that vocabularies need to be discussed in the main report! Sorry I was confused about this earlier today. After taking a closer look, I see that the vocabularies section has gotten a lot shorter (even before your edits) since the last time I looked, and a lot more general. 

When I look at your "some observations", they look a lot like they describe the "current situation". So I would envision folding the vocabulary observations into that section (which was called 'issues' not so long ago). Then the report structure would look something like this:

==General Report==
Executive summary
Introduction/Overview/Methodology
Benefits of Linked Data
Current Situation
Recommendations

==Technical Report==
....

==Appendix==
List of related documents

For the separate deliverables--the inventory and use case report--I would see mentioning them in the executive summary, and introduction/overview/methodology section. We might also want to point to them in an appendix.

Could you conceive of those "some observations" as part of the current situation? They would have descriptive headings, maybe something like this:

While classification systems are being converted, there is relatively low availability of bibliographic datasets

Quality and support for available sources varies greatly

Linking across various datasets, within and outside of the library domain, has begun, but needs further attention

-Jodi


On 4 Aug 2011, at 22:28, Antoine Isaac wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> In today's discussion, I've suggested that we could try to make the section on Available Data shorter *and* keep it in the (one) main report. The idea was to remove our lengthy explanations of what our categories are. These would be only in the separate longer report on Available Data.
> 
> My first attempt is at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2
> 
> You can compare withthe current version
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
> 
> Is this going in the right direction? Or even, good enough?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>