Re: Draft: Executive Summary

Yes, +1 to everything !
Emma

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> Hi Emma,
>
> I was just about to make remarks that would lead to a similar re-write, so
> a big +1 :-)
>
> I think there's also some redundancy in this pragraph:
> [
> This report contains an analysis of current state of library linked data,
> including detailed inventories of available vocabularies and technologies.
> The analysis was based on a set of use cases contributed by a variety of
> parties ranging from small, independent projects to activities in national
> libraries. From these the group extracted benefits, a brief report of the
> current state of library linked data, and recommendations for next steps.]
>
> I'd propose
> [
> Our work originates from a set of use cases contributed by a variety of
> parties ranging from small, independent projects to activities in national
> libraries. From these the group extracted benefits, a brief report of the
> current state of library linked data, and recommendations for next steps.
> Our analysis also features detailed inventories of available vocabularies
> and technologies.
> ]
>
> Finally, I'm afraid I'll argue for downplaying the last paragraph of the
> second part, on the Community Group. As we don't know when, or even,
> whether, such a group will happen, I suggest instead of the current:
> [
> The Incubator Group will transition to a W3C community group to provide an
> ongoing focal point for this activity. The community group will form shortly
> after the ending date for the incubator group. At that point the founders of
> the community group will solicit membership and ideas for directions and
> activities.
> ]
> by
> [
> To accompany such efforts, the members of the Incubator Group will seek to
> continue its activities and provide an ongoing focal point for these, for
> instance by transitioning to a W3C community group. At that point the
> founders of the community group would solicit membership and ideas for
> directions and activities.
> ]
>
> Would that work?
>
> Antoine
>
>
>  Hi Karen & all,
>>
>> I propose some rewriting on the first paragraph of the executive summary,
>> trying to make it both shorter and more easily understandable to an outsider
>> (for instance I think the quotes for the phrase extracted from the charter
>> are irrelevant here). Also I tried to reflect the broader scope of our
>> definition of Libraries.
>>
>> currently:
>>
>> This is the report of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group. Working
>> from May 2010 until August 2011, the group was given the charge to "...help
>> increase global interoperability of library data on the Web, by bringing
>> together people involved in Semantic Web activities—focusing on Linked
>> Data—in the library community and beyond, building on existing initiatives,
>> and identifying collaboration tracks for the future."
>>
>> The reason for the existence of this group at this time is the great
>> interest in sharing bibliographic data on the Web using Linked Data
>> technologies. For this to be successful it will be necessary to publish
>> library data on the web using semantic web standards.
>>
>>
>> I propose:
>>
>> The W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group worked from May 2010 until
>> August 2011, this final report being the main outcome of this activity. The
>> mission of the incubator group was to help increase global interoperability
>> of library data on the Web. At this time, libraries and other cultural
>> heritage or memory institutions, including museums and archives, show a
>> great interest in sharing data on the Web. Existing use cases and library
>> applications showcase the benefits of adopting Semantic Web standards and
>> Linked Data principles, in order to publish valuable information assets that
>> library create and curate, such as bibliographic data, lists of concepts,
>> names, persons, etc.
>>
>>
>> What do you think ?
>> Emma
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org<mailto:
>> jodi.schneider@deri.**org <jodi.schneider@deri.org>>> wrote:
>>
>>    It's very good to have a start on this! I think what's there is rather
>> discouraging, particularly in the summary of analysis. Unfortunately I don't
>> have time to look closer and possibly fix it -- but perhaps someone else can
>> push further the start Karen has given us?
>>
>>    I'm not sure whether, for our readers, Linked Data is obvious as a
>> starting point -- so I'd rather that we talk about "great interest in
>> sharing bibliographic data on the Web" rather than the "great interest in
>> sharing bibliographic data on the Web using Linked Data technologies". This
>> is a pretty significant change so I didn't just make it!
>>
>>    -Jodi
>>
>>    On 11 Aug 2011, at 15:35, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>     There is now a very drafty Executive Summary in the transcluded
>>> report. This should stimulate a discussion of what information should be
>>> included in the ExecSum. Please read and comment.
>>>
>>>    Our goal is to keep the ExecSum within a single page, so be aware that
>>> any information included in this section must be very succinct. However,
>>> there is room for expansion as the current draft is especially short.
>>>
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2005/**Incubator/lld/wiki/**ExecutiveSummary<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ExecutiveSummary>
>>>
>>>    --
>>>    Karen Coyle
>>>    kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>