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

Re: Draft report and use cases

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:18:57 -0800
Message-ID: <20110222071857.12145zrdela6bj6p@kcoyle.net>
To: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>
Cc: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>:

> As I authored the first very early draft of the report, I can explain
> what I had (roughly) in mind :
> 1/ WHY use LD in libraries -> illustrated by use cases
> 2/ WHAT is done already -> vocabularies, available datasets
> 3/ HOW to do it -> recommendations
> Of course this early structure is only here to be challenged and
> discussed  (e.g. addition of a "problems & limitations" section is a
> great idea).

Actually, this FINALLY makes the role of the use cases understandable  
to me. That they show a need and a real value of linked data -- not  
that they are the focus of our report.

This is excellent, Emma, as usual. :-)


> Emmanuelle
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Jodi Schneider  
> <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 2011, at 09:04, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>>> When I've mentioned "report" recently, I had quite a broad vision  
>>> of it--a document that could including several appendices which  
>>> could be more-or-less independent documents. Perhaps it's just  
>>> clearer to drop any use of the word "appendix". And adopt the view  
>>> that all material that it too big/detailed or even partial, will  
>>> physically go into separate "deliverables"--for which the core  
>>> report should provide a reading guide. Such an organization was in  
>>> fact hinted in the charter [1].
>> I like the idea of separate, more-or-less independent documents.  
>> This addresses the tension between producing a readable report and  
>> documenting our process. Meanwhile, it allows us to make full use  
>> of what we have gathered, while making it obvious that we have  
>> different products, which may be relevant to different audiences.
>> I think the appendix should be
>> - integral to the report (in terms of content)
>> - in a separate section at the end (in terms of location)
>> I think a reading guide could be a good appendix -- then the report  
>> would be "complete" in the sense that it lists everything we have  
>> produced. Then the related documents (use case clusters, but also  
>> the vocabularies, and the CKAN datasets) could be accessible from  
>> the report but not "integral" to and "part of" it.
>>> This includes the set of use case clusters, but also the  
>>> vocabularies, and the CKAN datasets, at least. Even though these  
>>> are just a snapshot (at least when the group has to disband--
>>> I hope the CKAN group will live on!), they can be useful to our community.
>> I agree! :)
>>> See the discussion we had on the LOD-LAM summit yesterday, and the  
>>> comments around the JISC RDTF metadata guidelines Monica  
>>> circulated last week, or the JISC use cases.
>>> People are asking for use cases, people are asking for pointers to  
>>> vocabularies and datasets.
>> Use cases will certainly be valuable for others! And vocabularies  
>> and datasets are essential.
>> At the same time, I understand (and agree with) Karen's point: the  
>> largest part of library data is held in catalogs, and we must  
>> emphasize that as one major application area. With RDA on the  
>> doorstep, this is a good moment to attend to the data, and argue  
>> for Linked Data.
>> I think that the multiplicity of use cases doesn't detract from the  
>> importance of this one; but I suspect that our different ideas  
>> about what to do with use cases (and how much time to spend on  
>> them) are due to differences on that point -- whether the largest  
>> uses may get lost in the multiplicity and variation.
>> -Jodi
>>> I agree that our current focus may be on something else now, but  
>>> we must not drop that valuable material at the last moment!
>>> Best,
>>> Antoine
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/charter#deliverables

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 15:19:33 UTC

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