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

Re: Restructuring the "available data" section (s)

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:54:47 +0100
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <56EEBFB4-C88E-43DF-AFB9-962217B04CD2@deri.org>
To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>

On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:46, ZENG, MARCIA wrote:

> 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.

Alternately, we could just get rid of the header "Available Vocabularies and Datasets", as in this diff
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2&diff=5848&oldid=5825

That's because it doesn't seem (to me) to describe the two subsequent sections.

I don't think that we're pressed for space -- it's just about making the report and its appendices fit together. I think we're reasonably ok with that at the moment, though of course ideas for making improvements (that could be quickly implemented) are still welcome!

-Jodi

> 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 10:55:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 10:55:20 GMT