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

Re: comments from a readthrough of the whole report

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:03:58 +0100
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <79682B45-19B0-4CB2-9263-291BE9259284@deri.org>
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>

On 25 Aug 2011, at 06:36, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:

> Hi Jodi, 
> Thnaks for your comments ! It took me some time to ingest them all. Now regarding the Benefits section,
> 
> 
> ==BENEFITS==
> 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 ;-)

Ok -- I've changed this to "can enable":
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Benefits&diff=5849&oldid=5847

>  
> 
> 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 ? 

Yes--the stone soup analogy is spot on. :)

>  
> 
> ==BENEFITS TO RESEARCHERS, STUDENTS, AND PATRONS==
> 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.

You're right, persistence can't be addressed in that section. However, this sentence implies that URIs will be good citations:
> citation management can be made as simple as cutting and pasting URIs." 
While I agree that LD URIs will be *better* citations than those from most modern ILS OPACs (which frequently don't persist, or may require the user to click a button for a permalink), this seems like an overstatement. However, since we know what we mean, I guess it's an overstatement I can live with!


> 
> 
> ==BENEFITS TO ORGANIZATIONS==
> 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.

Good. I agree--using more mainstream technology is beneficial to the organization.

Perhaps this could be reworded to emphasize that aspect? Something like:
"Today's library technology is specific to library data formats, leading to the existence of a special Integrated Library Systems industry specific to libraries. Adoption of mainstream technology will allow libraries a wider choice in vendors, meanwhile broadening the user base (and thus capacity) of traditional library vendors. Libraries will also be able to recruit from and interact with a larger developer pool, when data formats are mainstream rather than library-specific."

> 
> Cheers,
> Emma
> 
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 11:04:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 11:04:40 GMT