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

Short review on the Issue sections

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 16:08:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4DDE5EC6.4000705@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi everyone,

I have read the draft issue section at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page and found it really interesting, and well written. Kudos to the writers!

In fact it took me much more time, perhaps because I'm just not able to read a paper without diving into detail ;-)
So I 'll send an email later, with many nitpicking comments...

Meanwhile, here are some general comments, beyond the positive stuff above:

1. (potential) issue on scope. The current document does a great job at identifying the issues for LD adoption, on the library side. This is very good, but when we set up there was also the idea of mentioning also some problems that the LD community itself could take onboard, as a contribution from the library world to the technical stack being built and discussed in more technical or academic spheres. Is the idea NOT to have that in the section? currently other report sections (especially the technology and data ones) could play that role, e.g. for pointing at the relative lack of tooling. But we need to agree, if indeed we want to have that kind of dimension in the report.

2. length. The draft is well written, but I find it a bit long, for a section that has (and should have) a quite negative tone. I'm not sure to have a solution. The points made are generally excellent, and the matter is complex, so shortening at the expanse of explanations may be a pity.

3. pessimism. The sub-section titles are a bit too pessimistic to me. I understand the need to really make strong warnings. But reading the table of content makes me feel like we're doomed ;-) . In the same vein, it would be useful to acknowledge that some efforts have been or are being made in the library domain, toward embracing LD technology. Jodi made a comment on the "no library leaders" paragraph, I think I agree with her, and could make the same comment for other paragraphs!

4. LD as a all-or-nothing eandeavour. In the cost section it is hinted that LD would imply "large-scale changes". I think that there is in fact a continuum, where different LD-related techniques can be adopted, only a part of the data released, etc. This could allow some institution to jump-in, just for the bits they're interested in and/or are affordable to them.

5. Relations to recommendations. This is clearly for a later stage of writing, but I think we should not forget about it: it would bring a lot of extra value to the report, if individual issues can be explicitly related to individual recommendations.


Received on Thursday, 26 May 2011 14:06:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:57 UTC