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: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:46:50 -0400
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA7B3FCD.E48B%mzeng@kent.edu>
Hi, all,

Following the discussions on this thread, I could see that when putting
all the 'issues' together in the final report the "Linking Issues" section
in the appendix seemed to has more details and is standing by itself, as
Karen pointed out.

I wonder if there is anyway to make much changes at the (almost) last
minute.  It is fine to me to let it stay in the Appendix, if adding a
short introduction in the Available Vocabularies and Datasets[1] section
is an option. These issues echo to the three categories (datasets, value
vocabularies, and metadata element sets) so it would be useful to be
connected to the 'Inventory' part.


On 8/22/11 7:16 PM, "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

>Karen, others,
>
>To tell the truth, I'm also not comfortable with that section, either.
>It's a kind of mix between an issue, available (alignment) data and
>relevant (matching) technology. Even worse, it's been judged highly
>relevant by a couple of blog commenters, who even want more of it :-)

In addition to those comments, I saw someone already made the side
derivable in a 'reading list'.


>I've also received many personal mails asking about that matter, over the
>past couple of years.

Like Antoine experienced, I also got quite a lot of questions from
practitioners, especially those who wanted to start experimenting to make
linked library data, and especially those in the Asia and Pacific region.
In many cases, LLD grow from grassroots. I felt that there existed
documents on other issues (such as the rights and license issues), so
people may find answers and discussions here or there. There are fewer
available documents (if any) that summarized those linking issues (both
alignment practices examples and technology) like we aimed in LLD XG.

'LOD's 'L' seemed to be one of the most critical to those who are not just
wanting to make data available in the 'LD way' but also really linking
out.


>
>Anyway, if there is a majority for moving it into another part (the
>relevant technology one, or the side "data" deliverable) or just dropping
>it to a separate wiki page, I won't object to it. But well, I kind of
>agree with Marcia: the match with the side "data" deliverable would be
>far from perfect.
>And we've got to keep in mind that working more on it now so far we had
>received no negative comment about that bit. It is just looking awkward,
>because the rest of the report (esp. issues) has changed...

Since linking is not a pure 'technical' issue, especially on the value
vocabularies side, this part was not appended in the 'Relevant
Technologies' part in the report's draft. But I guess it is OK if we have
to move it into that part.

As for the length, if no words-count/space limit, I think the current text
should be kept (of course it can be modified to be even more precise if we
have more time.)
After all the XG is creating a useful text for potential users.




Thanks for reading my 2 cents.

Marcia

[1]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Avail
able_Vocabularies_and_Datasets

>
>Maybe something to resolve during next telecon?

>
>Cheers,
>
>Antoine
>
>[1]
>http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/w3clld/2011/06/26/available-vocabularies-and-data
>sets/
>
>> What isn't working for me is that it is just this one issue that gets a
>>more detailed text in the report. There are LOTS of critical issues, but
>>we have chosen to keep the text short for each of them. This one is an
>>exception. Should it be?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> Quoting "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@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.
>>> Marcia
>>>
>>> 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#T
>>>he_linking_issue>
>>>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Th
>>>e_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.
>>>
>>> kc
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> -Jodi
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"?
>>>
>>> -Jodi
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabul
>>>aries_Datasets_Section2&diff=5795&oldid=5777>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incu
>>>bator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff
>>>=5795&oldid=5777
>>> I hope it is better now!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Antoine -- sorry I wasn't clear.
>>>
>>> It's here:
>>>
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#A
>>>vailable_Vocabularies_and_Datasets>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
>>>wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Available_Vocabularies_and_Datasets
>>> (aka this section:
>>>
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_S
>>>ection2>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Dat
>>>asets_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
>>>
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#D
>>>ata_availability>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWi
>>>thTransclusion#Data_availability
>>> 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
>>>
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#A
>>>vailable_Vocabularies_and_Datasets>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
>>>wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Available_Vocabularies_and_Datasets
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -Jodi
>>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [1]
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabul
>>>aries_Datasets_Section&oldid=5672>
>>>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabula
>>>ries_Datasets_Section&oldid=5672
>>> [2]
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-M
>>>ultiple_Reports#Data_availability>
>>>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-Mu
>>>ltiple_Reports#Data_availability
>>> [3]
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-M
>>>ultiple_Reports#Available_Vocabularies_and_Datasets>
>>>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion-Mu
>>>ltiple_Reports#Available_Vocabularies_and_Datasets
>>>
>>>[4]<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Voca
>>>bularies_Datasets_As_Current_Situation&diff=5753&oldid=5670>http://www.w
>>>3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Dataset
>>>s_As_Current_Situation&diff=5753&oldid=5670
>>> [5]
>>><http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabul
>>>aries_Datasets_Section2&diff=5754&oldid=5710>
>>>http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabula
>>>ries_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 Thursday, 25 August 2011 04:47:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 04:47:26 GMT