- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:37:22 -0700
- To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Yes, this reads much better, Antoine. Thanks. - kc Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>: > Hi Karen, > >> I think this will work after editing, and especially after finding >> good "headlines" for all of the pieces. > > > I'll have a try at modifying Jodi's first attempt! > > >> The first section under "already available as linked data" doesn't >> make much sense to me -- maybe the point there is that there is >> work on authority data but we don't yet have much bib data out in >> LD space? > > > Yes, that was the intention. > Is > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section&diff=5659&oldid=5654 > better readable? > > Cheers, > > Antoine > > >> >> Quoting Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>: >> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 13:37:53 UTC