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

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

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:09:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E564988.6090602@few.vu.nl>
To: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Jodi,

I'm all fine with this option: seems like the one with the most interesting effort/value ratio :-)

Antoine


>
> 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 <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 <mailto: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 13:07:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:07:51 GMT