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: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:19:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPJqReM2w1bOa4Hbi7CQXH3+JM8FGmjbwcPG=64kUhhHOKOUFQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Ok, I've added this to the document:

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, one library could contribute their
country's national bibliography number for a resource, while another
might supply a translated title. At the same time, library services
could accept these 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 sources.

Thanks!
-Ross.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 23 August 2011 13:20:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 August 2011 13:20:15 GMT