- From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 14:38:02 +0100
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@FEW.VU.NL>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On 30 Mar 2011, at 12:46, Antoine Isaac wrote: > Hi Karen, > > I too support taking Richard's stuff onboard! When I read "syllabi" below, however, I'm wondering if this is a bit too "traditional", i.e., focused on bibliography. I don't read this that way -- I'm understanding 'syllabi' not just as using LD for presenting course materials but also as having courses which incorporate linked data and semantic web as topics. I think syllabi which incorporate linked data and semantic web are crucial for information programs. Bibliography is one place this belongs (LD/SW can be seen as extending metadata, where global identifiers offer potential for global interoperability). Yet there's theoretical work to be done in information organization -- particularly in bridging the perspectives between traditional library sciences (which haven't always been taken into account). There's still no book on library/information science I would think to give my colleagues who come out of computer science -- Svenonius' "The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization" is a bible, and brillant, and a valiant attempt at making LIS accessible. Yet it is too dense and too theoretical to be a comfortable read for most developers I know! > That's of course important, but when I think of integrating library data into "formal" (here, academic) stuff, I would have actually thought of integration of library data with research data, when this research data puts library objects (or other museum/archive objects) at the core of their focus. Of course this would apply especially to cases when library data as part of a family of LAM data which is interesting to digital humanities researchers [1], but there might be other institutional groupings and/or research contexts. These are all of course interesting! > But perhaps I'm now too much into the discussion on potential benefits, which Ed and the others started, so I'll stop :-) At one point, syllabi/course materials was on our list for discussion -- has that fallen by the wayside? -Jodi > > Antoine > > [1] One concrete example we can point to is http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Civil_War_Data_150 > > >> Richard, I tried to get as many of your ideas as I could into the recommendations as bullet points (I could imagine returning to your blog for some help with a more textual explanation). Take a look and see if you have other ideas that should be included. Note that I created a new section: >> >> Encourage interoperability between library data and data from other sources >> >> * in particular other cultural heritage communities, but not only >> * define sharing as data exchange that will not be just libraries making their data available, but that data can flow from other communities to libraries as well >> * include a discussion of user-provided information, from the more formal (inclusion in syllabi) to the informal (user tagging) >> >> Given that LD is all about interoperability, the general concept is a given, but it seems to me that there are some particular issues with libraries in this area, so that's what I was trying to address. >> >> kc >> >> Quoting Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been lurking on this list for a while, thinking about the various debates, and this call for comments has helped spur me into some sort of action. I've put the thoughts which come to the front of my mind here: >>> >>> http://light.demon.co.uk/wordpress/?p=91 >>> >>> Comments on my comments are welcome. >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> In message <20110324165012.753293kdl33zejec@kcoyle.net>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> writes >>>> The working group has fleshed out text on the issues that have been identified around LLD, and now wants to gather ideas for recommendations that the report can make. Recommendations can be at various levels from general to specific, and it would be good to have a number of proposals that could result in gains in the short term. >>>> >>>> We assume that the recommendations will evolve out of the issues. At the high level, the issues we have identified are: >>>> >>>> * 1.1 Linked Data is an emerging technology >>>> * 1.2 Library data is expressed in library-specific formats that cannot be easily shared outside the library community >>>> * 1.3 The library standards process is highly top-down and non-agile >>>> * 1.4 Current library data practices are expensive (and the true costs are unmeasured) >>>> * 1.5 Library ecosystem is designed for stability and resists change >>>> * 1.6 Library data may have rights issues that prevent open publication >>>> >>>> Each section has a fair amount of detail. >>>> >>>> As a first pass, the general categories for recommendations are: >>>> >>>> * 2.1 Identify costs of current practices, and costs and ROI to moving to LLD >>>> * 2.2 Identify issues for migration to LLD, both technical, managerial, and intellectual >>>> * 2.3 Identify areas where existing library community standards and Semantic Web standards require extension or development to support LLD >>>> * 2.4 Identify tools that are needed to support the creation and use of LLD >>>> * 2.5 Analysis for the transformation of current library data to LLD >>>> o 2.5.1 Deduplication >>>> * 2.6 Cultivate a research and development environment >>>> * 2.7 Create educational opportunities >>>> * 2.8 Include metadata design in library and information science education >>>> * 2.9 Foster a discussion about open data and rights >>>> >>>> We expect there to be iteration between the issues and the recommendations as we work on this, so if you have a recommendation with no issue, or vice-versa, please send it in. >>>> >>>> We are asking committee members and anyone else who wishes to begin to fill out points in the recommendations area. (We'll turn it into text as part of the editing process, so short bullets are ok if they make sense.) If you do not have edit access to the wiki, you can air your recommendations on this list and we'll gather them. Of course, discussion is encouraged. This is the real meat of our report and all ideas are welcome. >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Light >>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 13:38:41 UTC