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

Re: Terminology : libraries, library world, library community

From: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:52:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAODLZ4iSiax-S39J8AdrE27tQQVELtm6w8nyHJ=Getv_JdGOig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Can of worms... Let's just stick with "the library world".
Emma

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> I'm entirely ok with "library world"!
>
> Antoine
>
>
>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:20:50PM -0400, Peter Murray wrote:
>>>
>>> In reading through some of the examples, I thought 'profession' worked
>>> rather well.
>>
>> However...
>>
>>       library profession's identifiers for authority control?
>>       vendors outside the library profession??
>>       standardization in the library profession? or library-professional
>> standardization??
>>
>> I suspect there may be no _one_ term that can be searched and replaced.
>> For example:
>>
>>       library identifiers for authority control...?
>>       vendors outside the library environment...?
>>       standardization in the library environment...?
>>
>> Compared to some of the alternatives, "library world" doesn't seem so
>> bad...
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 12:34 PM, "Tom Baker"<tbaker@tbaker.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 05:34:23PM +0200, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've bumped on several ocurences, in the report, of the expression
>>>>> "the library world"
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> "the library world's identifiers for authority control" (scope [1])
>>>>> "vendors outside the library world may be able to adapt..." (benefits
>>>>> to developers and vendors [2])
>>>>> "Standardization in the library world..." (the current situation [3])
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if that expression is not a kind of jargon left over
>>>>> from informal discussions in the group ("in libraryworld"). Does
>>>>> everybody feel comfortable with it ? Should we use "library community"
>>>>> instead ? or just "libraries" as expected in [4] ?
>>>>
>>>> None of the following alternatives sound quite right:
>>>>
>>>>    1. the library's identifiers for authority control
>>>>    2. libraries' identifiers for authority control
>>>>    3. library identifiers for authority control
>>>>    4. librarian identifiers for authority control
>>>>
>>>> Of the four, #2 works best.
>>>>
>>>> "Library community" seems a bit informal - "standardization in the
>>>> library community" a bit odd.  How about:
>>>>
>>>>    libraries' identifiers for authority control?
>>>>    vendors outside the library market?
>>>>    standardization in librarianship? (urg)
>>>>
>>>> In each case, my impulse is to say something like "library world", but
>>>> not if it evokes the wrong associations...
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>> If I'm the only one to feel strange about "library world", we may just
>>>>> leave it as is...
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Scope_of_this_report
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Benefits_to_developers_and_vendors
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion#Library_standards_are_designed_only_for_the_library_community
>>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ConversionStyle
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tom Baker<tom@tombaker.org>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 09:53:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 September 2011 09:53:03 GMT