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

Re: Editing Scope of this report

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:05:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4E650F63.3070201@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 9/5/11 6:49 PM, Jodi Schneider wrote:
>
> On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:32, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I think that the examples you give, Karen, could be used, for instance as a footnote:
> "acquisitions, fund accounting, serials check-in, and other management data"
>
> I think that it's worth leaving in the mention of library-management data, if we can make it sufficiently clear.
>


It is still not 100% clear to me, sorry. I can buy most of it, it's just that I think there could be some use in e.g., acquisition data, as there is in circulation data. To tell the truth as I'm not aware of how precise these notions are, I had intuitively categorized circulation data as library management data. Since we have use cases for circulation data, I found the entire thing quite puzzling...

Antoine
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 18:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 September 2011 18:03:19 GMT