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: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:30:41 -0400
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110824163041.GA25701@julius>
This is looking good - the point is very clear now!

I tweaked the wording of one sentence [1].

Tom

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Benefits&diff=5835&oldid=5829

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:19:35AM -0400, Ross Singer wrote:
> 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 Wednesday, 24 August 2011 16:31:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 August 2011 16:31:38 GMT