- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:42:24 +0200
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Hi Ed, Joachim, I'm posting the question on your two use cases [1,2] I could not really ask in last week's telecon [3]. The data that is published in your cases is pretty much semantic web-oriented, mostly looking at the vocabularies you use: DC, OAI-ORE, FOAF, EXIF, BIBO. There's some RDA/FRBR at [1] but not much. And [2] links to METS records, but rather as a side resource, not a true linked data description. I'm myself pretty happy with that situation--I trust this can be really useful data as such already. But with my LLD hat on I'd like to know more ;-) So the question is whether the current situation results rather from: - a conscious choice of ignoring part of the legacy data you had in the original data sources, in the light of the requirements of your scenarios? - a too great effort needed to move legacy data to linked data, considering the resources you had? - the lack of legacy data--you just converted all what you had? Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Publishing_20th_Century_Press_Archives [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_NDNP [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/09/16-lld-minutes.html
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 14:42:58 UTC