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 14:22:40 -0800
Message-ID: <20110223142240.33551i9kpbb7sqls@kcoyle.net>
To: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Thanks, Kevin. I've added these into the doc, and created a new  
section for "The Case for LLD", which IMO is extremely important,  
although also very, very difficult.

kc

Quoting "Ford, Kevin" <kefo@loc.gov>:

> Action item....
>
>
> 1. Clear Purpose and Objective with LLD
>
> What's the case for LLD?  What problem does *Library* LD help to  
> solve?  How will it be of benefit to libraries (in addition to  
> and/or improvements on current practices, current standards, current  
> costs, etc)?  How will LLD help libraries better serve their users?
>
> This group's charter notes that "the mission of the Library Linked  
> Data incubator group is to help increase global interoperability of  
> library data on the Web ..." [1].   This is fine, but what is the  
> benefit of this activity to libraries, which will be asked to pour  
> resources into this activity?  To ask this in a more challenging  
> way:  So what?  How are libraries losing out now?  What's broke that  
> needs fixing?
>
> Will LLD only benefit data consumers?  Who are these data consumers?  
>  How will it benefit my mother, or your's?  Will it benefit data  
> creators (catalogers, for example)?  Will it benefit those managing  
> library technology?
>
> I feel that whatever follows in this document should further  
> illuminate the answers to these types of  questions.
>
> FWIW, it's fine that end users (my mother, e.g.) benefits only  
> indirectly.  Perhaps even catalogers benefit indirectly.  I'm not  
> suggesting there are right or wrong answers here, but that we  
> identify how and to whom LLD will be of benefit (though,  
> generically, it absolutely must be of benefit to libraries).
>
> It might be that these questions are closely related to point 2.
>
>
> 2. Attention to Education and Outreach
>
> With 1, general education will be a must, as Karen rightly noted.   
> Good answers to 1 will make this easier by providing focus to  
> education efforts.  It might also help to convince decision makers  
> to direct resources toward LLD projects.
>
>
> 3. Open Data
>
> Lot's of talk about LLD, but little about Library LOD.  The data  
> needs to be freed from restrictions and, as Ross suggested,  
> preferably bulk downloads provided.  To echo Ross's sentiment,  
> should the BL ping VIAF or ID 10s of millions of times for  
> information?
>
> The inability to share/include/use resources/data with minimal  
> restrictions, from an array of sources, will negatively impact  
> interoperability, the same "interoperability" from the mission  
> statement.
>
>
> 4. Data Modeling and Legacy Data
>
> I think these are two sides of the same coin and should be treated  
> simultaneously.  Data modeling questions should be asked in light of  
> current and future practices.  Is a new data model needed for LLD?   
> If so, how far must it depart from current models (and why)?  If a  
> new data model is to be recommended, what is the scope and purpose  
> of this data model?  Only for LLD purposes (which is the scope of  
> the current charter)?  Or meant to replace the current model  
> completely (which, while not mutually exclusive, is technically  
> beyond the current charter)?  What impact, if any, does a new data  
> model have on legacy data?
>
> There's been talk about data modeling and a general understanding  
> that something different is needed.  It is beyond the scope of this  
> group to recommend a detailed solution, but this group should be  
> able to talk about how current data models are insufficient to the  
> task and make general recommendations in light of those  
> reservations.  It should be clear how proposed models will  
> (positively) impact the audience members identified in 1.
>
>
> 5. Technology systems
>
> Is the current LD technology stack suitable?   If libraries are to  
> begin sharing the very information crucial to bibliographic  
> description (a mere link to a subject heading versus a string's  
> presence in the data), in no small part by relying on data from  
> external sources, do specific technological requirements need to be  
> defined to support look-up services, not only of known resources but  
> of yet-matched strings?  SPARQL end points have not been widely  
> implemented in existing LLD Implementations.
>
> What technological needs will be required, if any, given the  
> potential scope of change that could accompany a new data model?   
> Perhaps for LLD, very little is needed beyond the current technology  
> stack.  That would make any new data model an auxiliary model to the  
> current one, no?
>
>
> Kevin
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [public-xg-lld-request@w3.org] On  
> Behalf Of Ross Singer [ross.singer@talis.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 06:19
> To: Karen Coyle
> Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Brainstorming: Key Issues
>
> Here are some other ideas, some related to Karen's:
>
> 1) Where to start?  To convert a dataset of any significant size,  
> we'll need name authorities, subject thesauri, controlled vocabulary  
> terms, etc.  If everyone does this in isolation, minting their own  
> URIs, etc., how is this any better than silos of MARC records?  How  
> do institutions the size of University of Michigan or Stanford get  
> access to datasets such as VIAF so they don't have to do millions of  
> requests every time they remodel their data?  How do they know which  
> dataset to look in for a particular value?  What about all of the  
> data that won't be found in centralized datasets (local subject  
> headings, subject headings based on authorities with floating terms,  
> names not in the NAF, etc.)?
>
> 2) How do we keep the original data and linked data in sync?  If  
> changes happen to the linked data representation, how do we funnel  
> that back into the original representation?  Do we even want to?
>
> 3) The richer the data, the more complicated the dependencies: how  
> do we prevent rats nests of possible licensing issues (Karen raised  
> this, as well)?  Similarly, this web also creates an n+1 problem:  
> there's always the potential of a new URIs being introduced with  
> each graph; how much is enough?  How will a library know?
>
> 4) How do we deal with incorrect data that we don't own/manage?
>
> 5) As the graph around a particular resource improves in quality,  
> how do these changes propagate around to the various copies of the  
> data?  How do libraries deal with the changes (not only regarding  
> conflicts, but how to keep up with changes in the data model, with  
> regard to indexing, etc.)?
>
> 6) Piggybacking on Karen's "chicken or the egg" problem, who will be  
> first to take the plunge?  What is the benefit for them to do so?   
> In the absence of standards, will their experience have any  
> influence on how standards are created (that is, will they go  
> through the work only to have to later retool everything)?
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Karen Coyle  
> <kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
> This is my kick-off for brainstorming and key issues. I'd suggest that
> for the first go-round we not worry about structure or levels of
> granularity but just throw out ideas. I'll do my best to keep track
> and we can then come back and have a more coordinated discussion.
>
> Karen's list:
>
> 1) Community agreement and leadership
>  There are many in the community who are either not interested in
> LLD, don't know about LLD, or who are actually opposed to LLD. At the
> moment, there are no centers of leadership to facilitate such a major
> change to library thinking about its data (although IFLA is probably
> the most active).
>
> 2) Funding
>  It is still quite difficult to convince potential funders that this
> is an important area to be working in. This is the "chicken/egg"
> problem, that without something to show funders, you can't get funding.
>
> 3) Legacy data
>  The library world has an enormous cache of data that is somewhat
> standardized but uses an antiquated concept of data and data modeling.
> Transformation of this data will take coordination (since libraries
> share data and systems for data creation). But before it can be
> transformed it needs to be analyzed and there must be a plan for
> converting it to linked data. (There is a need for library systems to
> be part of this change, and that is very complex.)
>
> 4) Openness and rights issues
>  While linked data can be used in an enterprise system, the value
> for libraries is to encourage open use of bibliographic data.
> Institutions that "own" bibliographic data may be under constraints,
> legal or otherwise, that do not allow them to let their data be used
> openly. We need to overcome this out-dated concept of data ownership.
>
> 5) Standards
>  Libraries need to take advantage of the economies of scale that
> data sharing afford. This means that libraries will need to apply
> standards to their data for use within libraries and library systems.
>
> 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.)
>
> kc
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto: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 Wednesday, 23 February 2011 22:23:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 February 2011 22:23:14 GMT