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

Re: Editing Scope of this report

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:32:21 -0700
Message-ID: <20110905083221.18283gr9nk09zx51@kcoyle.net>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

> Hi,
> I've checked the "Scope" section, and made some editorial changes:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Scope&diff=6168&oldid=6067
> Most important items:
> 1.  removed a bit in
> [Data used primarily for library-management purposes or covered by  
> library privacy policies is generally out of scope.]
> ->
> [Data covered by library privacy policies is generally out of scope.]

Our intention was not to exclude only the privacy-related data, but  
also data like acquisitions, fund accounting, serials check-in, and  
other management data that we simply have not addressed here. I don't  
know an easy way to "name" that data, which is why we simply called it  
"library management" data.

> I entirely agree with Adrian's comment at  
> http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/w3clld/2011/06/26/benefits/#5: I don't see  
> a clear distinction between "“data used primarily for  
> library-management purposes" and "information produced or curated by  
> libraries that describes resources or aids their discovery" (in the  
> previous sentence). In doubt I prefer to keep only the clear item.

But this is very clear to me, I must say. Maybe it depends on whether  
you've worked directly with an ILS? But if we think that most of our  
readers won't assume that the library management data is included,  
perhaps we can leave that off.

> 2. Changed "Web addresses (URI)", in relation with a previous  
> comment from Tom. And streamlining the enumeration of resources that  
> are given URIs.
> 3. Moved the final sentence on data openness to the definition of Open Data.
> Note that I am very much tempted to give more concrete example (and  
> cite ISBN!) for "analogously to the library world's identifiers for  
> authority control". I.e., put "analogously to the library world's  
> identifiers for books (ISBN) or authority control (classification  
> numbers)". But I feel this is slightly more than copy-editing, and,  
> especially, a personal move, so I'll abstain for now :-)

And, of course, that could lead down a rabbit hole -- to begin with,  
the only library world "identifiers" are things like OCLC number and  
LCCN, and those identify the metadata not the resource. ISBN belongs  
to the publishers and doesn't cover all of the library holdings  
(having been implemented only in 1968 and by commercial publishers  
only). Classification numbers don't work as identifiers because  
libraries modify them for local purposes.

In fact, it is only now with VIAF that we are treating the authority  
record numbers as identifiers, a huge step forward that is somewhat  
hidden because those identifiers are not yet being used in the library  
records. (I think VIAF could be the turning point for library data  
when we look back ten years from now. Or perhaps I simply HOPE it will  


> Antoine

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 15:32:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:58 UTC