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

Re: Restructuring the "available data" section (s)

From: ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:19:48 -0400
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>
CC: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <141E8147-289B-4CFB-9201-F870F5A64D24@kent.edu>
Thanks for the suggestions from Karen and Emma.

However, I think it is better to have the linking issue as an appendix instead of mix in the side deliverable, which is more informational than issues and recommendations.

The linking issues are very critical and are different in the linkings of value vocabularies vs metadata element sets and are unique in datasets... If not to tie it with the Available vocabularies, it should be stand alone as an appendix.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:05, "Emmanuelle Bermes" <manue@figoblog.org<mailto:manue@figoblog.org>> wrote:

The issue is already summarized as an item with link to this appendix in the "current situation" section. Why not put the content of "the linking issue" [1] in the side deliverable [2], and change the link in "current situation" ?

It's possible we already discussed this option though, but I can't remember it...

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#The_linking_issue> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#The_linking_issue

[2] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Karen Coyle <<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
I agree with Jodi that there is something that doesn't work in this section. The "linking issue" doesn't fit under the general heading "Available...". In fact, I'm not quite sure what this section is attempting to do here in the appendix. If this is an issue that we need to address then it should be in the issues section, no? It seems quite out of place here.

I could imagine a section on vocabulary linking that emphasizes vocabularies like VIAF and LCSH that are available for widespread linking. But I don't think that's what this section was intended to do.


Quoting Antoine Isaac <<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>aisaac@few.vu.nl<mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>>:

Hi Jodi,

I'm ok for splitting them, and have thus 3 "technical appendices". It's in fact my preferred solution. But Marcia' right to say we can come with a small introduction, and having now 3 appendices is a significant change in the formal structure of the report (though not on the content).
So let's give ourselves a couple more days, and ask to the group: any objection to having 3 technical appendices, anyone?


OK, I see the issue. Indeed the appendix on available data is a bit unbalanced now, as it results from putting aside two things that were in one bigger section before (together with the bits on "data availability" that are in the "current situation" now):
- a brief presentation of the report
- more details on the issue of semantic connections (alignments).

I can't really think of a way to introduce them in an elegant way. These are basically left-overs, but left-overs that are important, and refered to from the main report body. I hope readers will access them from that main report that cites them. I also count on the fact that readers would be less demanding, for a more technical appendix.

And I'd be reluctant to remove them. It's good to have a teaser for the side deliverable on data. And the part on alignment issues is quite important. In fact via the blog comments we've been asked to write even more on it...

I'm not suggesting removing them. But if they are two separate things, let's give them each a heading:
-An inventory of existing library linked data resources
-The linking issue
, rather than subsuming the two under a common heading ("Available Vocabularies and Datasets").

I agree that these are valuable to have in the report!




Thanks, Antoine! I think that's really nice!

I think I was mainly confused because there are two subsubsections there, under the heading "Available Vocabularies and Datasets":
-An inventory of existing library linked data resources
-The linking issue
Are these two subsections part of some larger whole? If so *that*, to me, is what requires an introduction (i.e. explaining the larger whole). Alternately, perhaps they are each subsections, and we can get rid of the heading "Available Vocabularies and Datasets"?


On 19 Aug 2011, at 22:02, Antoine Isaac wrote:

Hi Jodi,

I feel there was already a kind of introduction in the section you're pointing at. Anyway, as it was missing some of your point, I've extended it: the result can be seen at

I hope it is better now!



Hi Antoine -- sorry I wasn't clear.

It's here:

(aka this section:
<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2 )

The inventory isn't introduced. I think it would help to explain why it's important and why people should read it.

:) -Jodi

On 17 Aug 2011, at 23:30, Antoine Isaac wrote:

Hi Jodi,

Thanks for the feedback! I think these are good ideas to take onboard, but as the material on available data has changed quite a lot in the past weeks, I'd like to be sure for which part, you'd suggest this introductory paragraph :-)

- the "Data availability" sub-section (in "current situation") of the main report

has a small introduction
The success of linked library data relies on the ability of its practitioners to identify, re-use or connect to existing datasets and data models. Linked datasets and vocabularies that are essential in the library and related domains, however, have previously been unknown or unfamiliar to many. The LLD XG has thus initiated an inventory of available library-related linked data, which is presented in further detail in Section @@TODO@@ and has lead to the observations below.

- the "Available Vocabularies and Datasets" technical section at the end of the main report

also has stuff presenting the inventory

I agree that both may not address all your points. But together they already give a lot. If I'm to adapt one of them, which one would you recommend?



Thanks, Antoine! :)

I think it would be useful to add an introductory paragraph to the inventory, giving a motivation for providing it. Motivations might include

-having a convenient place for librarians to become more familiar with key vocabularies
--due to general lack of familiarity
--due to the importance of reusing vocabularies

-showing the adoption of semweb and the maturity of existing vocabularies
--there are many areas with mature vocabularies
--there are other areas where libraries could participate in the innovation if they desire

Maybe there are other reasons? The intro would help clarify the importance of this section in the whole report, as well as indicate the appropriate audience for it.


On 12 Aug 2011, at 23:23, Antoine Isaac wrote:

Dear all,

In the last telecon it was agreed that the former "available data" section [1] could live in the final report, on the condition that it is split in two parts:
- one fitting the new "current situation" section [2]
- the other being put at the end of the report, to give more details [3]

To address complains about the length of the proposed sub-section for "current situation", I've tried to shorten it, and put some of the material in the separate section at the end [5]. I've also created a small intro in the "current situation" sub-section, which refers to our survey and the appendix section.

Feedback is much welcome. The paragraphs are still the longest ones in the "current situation" section, but I do hope they fit better now...



[1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section&oldid=5672> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section&oldid=5672

[2] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-Multiple_Reports#Data_availability> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-Multiple_Reports#Data_availability

[3] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-Multiple_Reports#Available_Vocabularies_and_Datasets> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-Multiple_Reports#Available_Vocabularies_and_Datasets


[5] <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=5754&oldid=5710> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=5754&oldid=5710

Karen Coyle
<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> <http://kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net

ph: 1-510-540-7596<tel:1-510-540-7596>
m: 1-510-435-8234<tel:1-510-435-8234>
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 16:20:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 August 2011 16:20:25 GMT