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

Re: comments from a readthrough of the whole report

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:36:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAODLZ4iPUAy5XQHqUSXnJ-hHViz6fxFAqGKdViQ04f9LnA_uQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Jodi,
Thnaks for your comments ! It took me some time to ingest them all. Now
regarding the Benefits section,

> 1) "It provides multilingual facilities (e.g. multilingual labeling of
> concepts identified by a language-agnostic URI) for data and user services."
> -- 'provides' strikes me as a little overstrong here. While
> language-agnostic URIs are best practice, are they inherently required? Or
> perhaps I misunderstand this sentence!

Can we replace "provides" by a less strong term, maybe "empowers" or just
"helps providing" or "contributes providing" (contribution by a native
english speaker could help me here ;-)

> 2) Here, while I understand "unique expertise", it may not be clearly
> understood just from what is written: "linked data allows anyone to
> contribute unique expertise in a form that can be reused and recombined with
> the expertise of others." Perhaps an example would help? Or rephrasing?
> 3) "Through rich linkages with complementary data from trusted sources,
> libraries can increase the value of their own data beyond the sum of their
> sources taken individually." -- I'm not sure what "the sum of their sources"
> means here. That diverse, complementary sources are more valuable when
> combined?

I think both these comments are adressed by Ross's new paragraph
reintroducing the former stone soup analogy. Maybe the result is somewhat
redundant ?

> 1) "crawling and relevancy algorithms of Google, Google Scholar, and
> Facebook," -- do we want to also (or perhaps instead) talk about the general
> categories "search engines and social networking sites"?

Your comment makes perfect sense, I just changed it.

> 2) "Structured data embedded in HTML pages will also facilitate the re-use
> of library data in services to information seekers: citation management can
> be made as simple as cutting and pasting URIs." -- is this the same
> 'citation management' as in bibliographies? This implies that LD will ensure
> persistence of URIs; I wish!

Of course I agree, persistence of IDs is still an issue... But I'm not sure
such a comment would belong in this section of the report.

> 1) Parts of this paragraph are repeated in the "Benefits to Developers and
> Vendors" section. I don't think that's a problem, but I noticed it.
> "Today's library technology is specific to library data formats, leading to
> the existence of a special Integrated Library Systems industry specific to
> libraries. Library system vendors will benefit from the adoption of
> mainstream technology as it will give them an opportunity to broaden their
> user base. The fact of not being tied to the library-specific data formats
> will be a benefit to developers."

I think it was intended. Linked data technology not being tied to libraries
is a benefit to both.

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 05:36:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 05:36:35 GMT