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

RE: Brainstorming: Key Issues

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:39:27 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590B979406@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
I think our notion of "surrogate" is destined to change from "record" to
"concept". I suspect it will be a quiet revolution analogous to how our
notion of LCCN changed over the years from "card number" to "control
number" and now (for all intents and purposes) to "concept number".

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ed Summers
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 10:25 AM
> To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Brainstorming: Key Issues
> 
> There has been some really good content in this thread so far. I
> really liked the point that Antoine and Jeff identified regarding what
> pre-web libraries have traditionally called "surrogates" and the need
> for such a notion on the web--in particular in the Linked Data space.
> It is an extremely important point which will largely effect how well
> library data will fit in with the Linked Data community, and the Web
> in general.
> 
> I think this very specific point ripples out quite a bit, into how
> vocabularies are used to describe library materials. Perhaps it is too
> ambitious but I would like the final report to make recommendations
> about what vocabularies are useful for making library linked data
> available, and to identify places where new vocabulary is needed.
> 
> Kevin and Emmanuelle's point about needing to come up with a
> compelling elevator pitch is also extremely important. I would like to
> see some pretty clear language in the report describing a) why library
> system developers might want to consider using Linked Data, and b) why
> library professionals should make Linked Data support a requirement
> when purchasing or developing systems.
> 
> //Ed
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:31:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 February 2011 18:31:49 GMT