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

Re: Adding back the essence of the Stone Soup analogy to the Benefits section

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:19:51 -0700
Message-ID: <20110822131951.19302oa0f7d94a93@kcoyle.net>
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
You're welcome. And I like the example of providing a simple national  
bibliographic number. I was groping for an example like that but  
failed. Maybe you can make that edit in the wiki text?

kc

Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:

> Hi Karen, accentuating the positive definitely presents a better tone.
>
> One of the points I would like to emphasize here is that contributions
> need not be as dramatic as supplying, say, authority data vs.
> bibliographic data, but can be as mundane as simply providing a
> national bibliography number or simply the title and author translated
> into your local language, etc.  I think that notion of the big picture
> being comprised of seemingly innocuous atoms would help people realize
> that they can actually participate in this environment.
>
> Your edits definitely make this much cleaner, thanks so much!
> -Ross.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> Ross, I think the "one sentence" was a challenge, not a realistic
>> expectation :-)
>>
>> I tried taking out some of the statements that people might see as
>> "negative" (e.g. "very little to provide"):
>>
>> Another powerful outcome of the reuse of these unique identifiers is
>> that it allows data providers to contribute portions of their data as
>> statements.  Under our
>> current document-based ecosystem, data exchange is always in the form of
>> entire records,
>> which are presumed to be complete descriptions.
>>  In a graph-based architecture, however,
>> an organization can supply individual statements
>> about a resource, and all statements provided about a particular
>> uniquely identified resource can be aggregated into the global graph.
>> For example, libraries can contribute authoritative names apart from the
>> full bibliographic description, and this can be used by others. At the same
>> time, library services could accept statements from other sources, as
>> they do today when they take in book cover images from outside services. In
>> a
>> linked data ecosystem, there is literally no contribution too small
>> and it is this attribute that makes it possible for important
>> connections to come from previously unknown of sources.
>>
>> a suggestion
>> kc
>>
>> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
>>
>>> Hi all, in the last conf call I was given an action to figure out a
>>> way to incorporate the "essence" of the Stone Soup analogy (which was
>>> clearly causing problems for people) into something more palatable.
>>> The charge was to do it in a sentence -- I failed at one sentence, but
>>> here's a paragraph I'm proposing for people to distill and wordsmith:
>>>
>>> <current_text>
>>> By using globally unique identifiers to designate works, places,
>>> people, events, subjects, and other objects or concepts of interest,
>>> memory institutions allow resources to be cited across a broad range
>>> of data sources and thus make their metadata descriptions more richly
>>> accessible. The Web's Domain Name System assures stability and trust
>>> by putting these identifiers into a regulated and well-understood
>>> ownership and maintenance context. This is fully compatible with the
>>> long-term mandate of memory institutions. Libraries, and memory
>>> institutions generally, are in a unique position to provide trusted
>>> metadata for resources of long-term cultural importance as data on the
>>> Web.
>>> </current_text>
>>> <added_paragraph>
>>> Another powerful outcome of the reuse of these unique identifiers is
>>> that it allows data providers to contribute statements about
>>> resources, even if they only have very little to provide.  Under our
>>> current document-based ecosystem, it is not efficient for
>>> organizations that only know a fact or two about a given resource to
>>> publish it; the host institution has a relatively useless metadata
>>> record and consumers must devise ways of discovering, identifying and
>>> integrating these statements.  In a graph-based architecture, however,
>>> there is no downside to an organization supplying anything they can
>>> about a resource, since all statements provided about a particular
>>> uniquely identified resource aggregate into the global graph.  In a
>>> linked data ecosystem, there is literally no contribution too small
>>> and it is this attribute that makes it possible for important
>>> connections to come from the unlikeliest of sources.
>>> </added_paragraph>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Ross.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 20:20:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 August 2011 20:20:53 GMT