Re: Proposal for restructuring the final deliverables

Ok, glad you think it could work to consolidate current issues with vocabs and data into the current situation section, Emma. 
Since the vocabulary section would need some editing to work as 'current situation', I'd also like to hear what others think.
I pasted the *current* text into a temporary page to show what it might look like:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/User:Jschneid4

I've made a copy of Antoine's edits (so as not to destroy what he was working on) and added headings, so others can edit this if you like:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_As_Current_Situation

You'll notice that the deliverable and definitions are not there. I split that part out into another place:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Intro
I think parts of this belongs in different places but I want to make sure these don't get lost! 
In particular, for the definitions, I propose adding a very brief addition to "scope of this report" (which is on the Benefits page):
Though Linked Data technology changes the way to consider traditional library data categorization, we could classify these available resources into three (non mutually exclusive) main families that reflect library practices:
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@@

Sorry to be adding pages like crazy! I'm having trouble figuring out how to experiment without forking pages, and I'd welcome suggestions of better ways to handle this!

-Jodi

On 5 Aug 2011, at 07:08, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:

> Hi Jodi,
> 
> I like you idea of merging Vocs & data with Current situation.
> As I advocated yesterday on the call, for me the fact that there are
> already data and vocabularies out there is a major fact to be
> emphasized in the current situation.
> 
> Emma
> 
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>