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

Re: Brainstorming: Key Issues

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:03:14 -0800
Message-ID: <20110221140314.13687c3zmdyneeqq@kcoyle.net>
To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>
Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
OK, in a crude way I gathered together all of the Problems and  
Limitations sections and simply plopped them into:


They are organized (for the little that they are) into the categories  
that had been identified, e.g. Missing Vocabularies, Data  
incompatibilities, etc. I have not yet done any editing, like removing  
duplicates. If I get a chance I will do some of that. An interesting  
question for me is whether I can find the key issues that I am  
concerned about in this list, or if those issues can be  
deduced/derived from this list.


Quoting "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>:

> making it clearer:
> On 2/21/11 4:20 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Marcia, I have to admit that I'm not sure what you're proposing,
> MZ:  #A is still work on the use case report based on the curated  
> clusters.  The result will be a Use Case report.
> Also I suggest to have a Working Group (now or future) to focus on  
> the dominating [legacy] library bibliographic data, if there are no  
> sufficient resource are present.
> but
> maybe the thing to do is for you to go ahead with:
> B.  Suggest to generate a "Key Issues" summarization from the use case
> clusters' 'Problems and limitations" section ASAP.
> ... and we can then see what that produces. We can then add to it if
> we see gaps.
> MZ: Yes, but maybe not me who should do this (I'd be glad to assist  
> if there is a leader).  I just felt we may miss what are already  
> figured out.  Maybe everyone just read the section already covered  
> by some of the clusters.
> kc
> Quoting "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>:
>> Some general comments here.
>> Let's review the charter regarding the proposed deliverables:
>> (Number added by me.)
>> As a W3C Incubator group, our primary responsibility is to produce a
>> final report presenting the landscape of Linked data development in
>> the library domain and related sectors, and propose a way forward
>> for these communities to participate productively in further W3C
>> standardization actions.
>> Also, a number of other deliverables may be produced by the
>> Incubator Group, although this work may also be subsumed into the
>> final report, including :
>> 1. A use-case document that describes a number of real-world use
>> cases, case studies, outreach and dissemination initiatives targeted
>> to the library community and related sectors
>> 3  A document that describes relevant technology pieces, including
>> vocabularies and ontologies (e.g., SKOS), with the intended goal to
>> identify extension or interoperability requirements, and help
>> determine what other standards may be needed."[1]
>> In the Wiki there was another 'requirement' piece added:
>> 2. "express requirements to approach library environments to the
>> Semantic Web" [2]
>> My suggestions:
>> A.  One of the report pieces that we can work on is still the use
>> cases.  Reasons:
>>  *   I believe that the XG has done so far for the use cases and the
>> analyses would lead to a good report that go well with the #1
>> suggested deliverable, not matter whether it will be a part of the
>> overall report or be an appendix.  It can be written in different
>> ways to fit the final report.
>>  *   Even though the library legacy data (especially MARC- ,
>> UNIMARC- , and ISBD-based data) may have not got a good use case,
>> there are ready cases of national libraries that case studies can be
>> analyzed and summarized.  Maybe this ought to results in a Working
>> Group for the next step.
>>  *   This use case (treat as a whole or with sub- use cases) form
>> one typical area.
>>  *   The LLD-XG use cases and clusters have covered MANY MORE areas
>> which are all important and critical to the whole LIS fields and
>> information professionals.
>>  *   I strongly agree with Antoine that "I agree that our current
>> focus may be on something else now, but we must not drop that
>> valuable material at the last moment!"
>> B.  Suggest to generate a "Key Issues" summarization from the use
>> case clusters' 'Problems and limitations" section ASAP.  Reasons:
>>  *   What has been discussed now on the 'Brainstorming-key issues',
>> especially what Tom added here, are key issues.
>>  *   However they look familiar in some of our 'Problems and
>> limitations" section.[3]    (And we have more there even though it
>> was limited to the Voc cluster.)
>>  *   If a more generalized chapter is created from those sections in
>> the cluster, we may have a better 'Brainstorming-key issues'
>> discussion based on the summarization.  Otherwise we may spend weeks
>> to create redundant works.
>>  *   This summarization still aligns with what Tom proposed last
>> week,[4] in terms of the divided tasks assignment.  This will allow
>> us to best use the manpower of the whole group and the limited time
>> of the XG.
>> C. These two pieces would be parts of the whole report. There could
>> be other pieces addressing different issues.  They can be prepared
>> by those who can demonstrate the needs to have that piece and would
>> be willing to draft that piece.  Having more contents as a pool for
>> the final report is better than having less.  (It reminds me about
>> how many names Thomas Edison's lab had had for that 'phonography'
>> thing before the best one was selected.)
>> Marcia
>> [1]  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/charter#deliverables
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Main_Page#Deliverables
>> [3]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_VocAlign#Problems_and_limitations
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0035.html
>> [5] The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the
>> Modern World. P.31-32. (If search 'omphlegraph' it can directly
>> point to the page by a Google Book search.)
>> On 2/21/11 11:42 AM, "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:26:45AM -0800, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> You can comment on these and/or post your own. Don't think about it
>>> too hard -- let's get as many issues on the table as we can! (I did 5
>>> - you can do any number you wish.)
>> Some more:
>> 1. Persistence of resolvable URIs.  In the short term, Linked
>>    Data facilitates mash-ups, but for the long term, the use
>>    of RDF and URIs holds out the possibility of preserving
>>    the meaning of content in a way that will remain accessible
>>    twenty years from now -- provided that the URIs on which
>>    it is based are not sold, re-purposed, or simply forgotten
>>    and remain resolvable to machine-readable documentation.
>>    For libraries, this implies not just preservation policies
>>    for locally owned URIs and associated content, but an
>>    active voice, as a community, in the long-term governance
>>    of the global Web's Domain Name System.
>> 2. Provenance of triples.  In Linked Data, statements may be
>>    merged from many sources, creating a graph the statements
>>    of which may no longer be traceable to those sources.
>>    This problem can be solved in pragmatic, non-standard ways,
>>    but as institutions which historically were created
>>    to make citations resolvable, libraries have a stake in
>>    supporting the standardization of graph identification [1].
>>    One very practical related problem is that which MacKenzie
>>    Smith has called "attribution stacking" -- how to credit the
>>    one hundred creators of a graph created from the merger
>>    of one hundred sources [2].  MacKenzie Smith refers
>>    to Provenance as one of the "three Ps of Linked Data",
>>    the other two being Persistence (see #1 above) and Policy
>>    (Karen's point #4 [3]).
>>    [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs
>>    [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSmG1-hoZfE&t=43m43s
>>    [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0044.html
>> 3. Preservation of vocabularies.  We can be reasonably certain
>>    that the Library of Congress will be around twenty
>>    years from now, so the persistence of http://id.loc.gov
>>    seems secure, though history shows that ultimately no
>>    institution is too big to fail.  At the other extreme,
>>    useful vocabularies may be created by sponsored projects
>>    with a known expiration date.  How can memory organizations,
>>    including libraries, better collaborate to ensure that
>>    ownership and responsibility for persistence of access
>>    (and possibly for ongoing maintenance duties) devolves
>>    over time to institutions committed to their preservation?
>> 4. When to coin new terms, when to re-use, and how to align.
>> Come on, everyone - let's bash out some more ideas...!
>> Tom
>> --
>> Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 21 February 2011 22:03:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC