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

Re: Brainstorming: Key Issues

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:14:50 -0800
Message-ID: <20110223061450.21372vwawkhpf5ga@kcoyle.net>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Note that here all I would be expecting is a brief  
> description/examplification of the problem. A bit as you did; by RWO  
> I meant only the Eiffel Tower itself indeed. The point is that the  
> general linked data crowd finds it quite unnatural that "topics"  
> should be given their own life as resources next to the RWO ones.

So perhaps this becomes a statement that library metadata and semantic  
web metadata have some differences in their underlying concepts, and  
the issue is: determine if these have to be resolved in order to  
create LLD.


> So we'd need to explain:
> - the legacy aspects (millions of "topics" are there),
> - the benefits of the approach (especially, it would be cleaner for  
> data management and alignment)
> - and some hints at how to handle it with SW tech in a way that  
> still make some sense for the common data consumer, as Jeff did in  
> his mail (on way could be indeed to advocate that "topics"  
> representations should be aligned with RWO representations, as much  
> as possible).
> It can remain quite shallow (I would not expect here a theory on the  
> notions of "surrogate" or "proxy") as long as it demonstrates well  
> enough the importance of the problem.
> Can such an approach fit what you have in mind for this "issues"? Or  
> do you think such a paragraph (I think it can be as small as the  
> above) would be too big already?
> Antoine

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 14:15:25 UTC

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