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

Re: Categorization for metadata element sets

From: ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:05:07 -0400
To: "gordon@gordondunsire.com" <gordon@gordondunsire.com>, public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA6AE305.C237%mzeng@kent.edu>
Hi, Gordon,
Thanks for your comment.  We also moved ISBD into the published section.[1]
Best,
Marcia
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#ISBD_.28International_Standard_Bibliographic_Description.29

From: "gordon@gordondunsire.com<mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com>" <gordon@gordondunsire.com<mailto:gordon@gordondunsire.com>>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 08:04:15 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org<mailto:public-xg-lld@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Categorization for metadata element sets


Antoine and colleagues



This works for me. I think it's good to separate the stuff into "from LAM" and "from other communities" because the LAM (mainly L) stuff will hopefully be familiar to librarian readers, and they may be surprised at the other stuff. It emphasises the cross-community interest. If it's all mixed up, the impact is lessened, I think.



btw, you can move ISBD from the work in progress section to the published section. I will update the entry on the Library Data Resources page real soon now.



Cheers



Gordon

On 11 August 2011 at 22:44 Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> There was a pending comment by Jodi (and I believe, others. Maybe Bernard...) on the Vocabularies and datasets deliverables, which required us to investigate categorizing metadata element sets.
> We had a first try at a dual categorization: LAM and LIS vs the rest of the world:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Vocabulary_and_Dataset&oldid=5739#Metadata_element_sets_published_as_RDF_vocabularies
> (see "Originated from the Libraries, Archives, Museums and Information communities" and "Originated from other communities")
>
> That's quite arbitrary, but we couldn't really find something else, and it may still be enlightening for our specific library audience. As a first (unchecked) intro says it:
> [
> To help readers orient themselves in our selection, we first introduce metadata element sets that originate from the Libraries, Archives, Museums and Information communities. We then present relevant element sets, which are rooted in other communities. This categorization is often arbitrary, as many vocabularies already result from cross-community work. We believe it shows however the great potential of the linked data approach, where easily sharing, re-using or extending a diversity of element sets independently from their origin shall be the rule.
> ]
>
> Your feedback HIGHLY welcome on that idea. Speaking for myself here, I'm quite ready to abandon it, if you are not convinced.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoine on behalf (except for the last sentence ;-) ) of Marcia, Jeff, William
>
> PS: I thought about it, but I was too much afraid to fire this discussion at the community list. With our current timing we may just run out of time before reaching consensus :-)
>
>
Received on Friday, 12 August 2011 18:05:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 August 2011 18:05:36 GMT