- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:46:05 +0200
- To: public-lld@w3.org
Hi Lukas, everyone, > - Tools: yes please! Lots of smaller libraries do not have their own developer staff needed to do anything with linked data or similar. They need simple-to-use tools to either publish or use LOD. For instance, A smaller Dutch commercial library/museum system vendor, Adlib, is planning to add utilities to their ILS for publishing metadata as LOD. And I am hoping to do a session at this year's IGeLU (Ex Libris user group) meeting about 'Linked Data and Ex Libris products'), touching on needed utilities for both publishing and using linked data. Trying to understand, is something like Poolparty [1] at the right level of tooling you'd be expecting (for SKOS in that case)? While it does implement some linked data technology, its adaptation to one domain (SKOS) makes it a bit more community-friendly. (at everyone: I'm just using Poolparty for the sake of the example here!) Now, on whether we should aim to produce a fully-fledged list of tools in the small amount of time we have left, I share Emmanuelle's doubts. Given the maturity of the field, there are not many library-focused tools. Plus it would take quite some time to investigate. I'd be more than happy to put such a list among our recommendation for future work, though. And even, to try and present an infrastructure to start the listing, as we've done for datasets at CKAN [2]. In fact I do really like what Jeff has done in this respect, making reference to the tool lists at W3C, like [3] or [4]. A contribution from our group in the coming weeks may be to identify whether we could use the W3C infrastructure for this. I think the W3C templates are pretty flexible, we could maybe add a tag "library" to be used by the tool publishers when they want to advertise their stuff on W3C there. And then create a wiki page at W3C which would pull dynamically the tools annotated with that tag. Just as the SKOS tool section on the W3C wiki was created [4]. If that's deemed interesting, we could ask the W3C team what they think of it. Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/PoolParty [2] http://ckan.net/group/lld [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/SKOS > > Lukas Koster > > On 18-4-2011 7:53, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Karen Coyle<kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >>> Nice and concise, Jeff. >> >> +1 ! >> >>> >>> I wonder, though, about our focus for this section and for the vocabularies >>> section. The latter mixes LLD and BLD (B = bibliographic). If we agree >>> that's a good scope then we should bring the "B" word into the report early >>> on. I think it would be hard to separate library and bibliographic, >>> especially when we are talking about linked data where the two will >>> presumably blend together in actual use. >>> >>> The tools here seem to be general SemWeb tools, so to include these in our >>> report we need to give a reason why they are here. >> >> You're right on this, Karen. >> In the 1st place, we thought of including a "tools" section because >> it's something that is needed and asked for by the community. Maybe >> its place is not in the report, though. >> This very interesting starting point created by Jeff could be >> considered as a preview of what we recommend be elaborated - a list of >> tools that can help create LLD. >> It's also probably possible to state that one "requirement" for LLD is >> that tools are available. A possible recommendation could be to >> evaluate these tools, and check if they need be adapted for LLD. >> >> Also, maybe a better sense of what "tools" are expected is needed. I >> suspect that people asking for tools in the library community are more >> or less hoping that we will point them to a ready-made "marc-2-rdf" >> converter, or a GUI for cataloguing books as triples, or even an >> rdf-based OPAC. Not sure that developper tools will seem relevant to >> them, what do you think ? >> >> Should we point in the report to experiments like Lukas' [1] or >> initiatives like eXtensible Catalog [2] ? >> >> Emma >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Apr/0069.html >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0034.html >> >> >> I don't know of any >>> specific LLD tools, does anyone?. (The closest I can think of is the Open >>> Metadata Registry, which has an input interface to RDA and other library >>> vocabularies, but it also includes non-library vocabularies.) We could say >>> that "tools are tools" and we don't have/expect LLD-specific tools, or we >>> could say that LLD-specific tools will be built on these tools... >>> >>> kc >>> >>> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)"<jyoung@oclc.org>: >>> >>>> Here's a rough draft of the Relevant Technologies section that I >>>> promised. It looks like the W3C keeps good lists of tools for several of >>>> these categories, so I deferred to them whenever possible. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments, suggestions, and elaborations are welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Jeffrey A. Young >>>> Software Architect >>>> OCLC Research, Mail Code 410 >>>> OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. >>>> 6565 Kilgour Place >>>> Dublin, OH 43017-3395 >>>> www.oclc.org<http://www.oclc.org> >>>> >>>> Voice: 614-764-4342 >>>> Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342 >>>> Fax: 614-718-7477 >>>> Email: jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Karen Coyle >>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >>> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >>> m: 1-510-435-8234 >>> skype: kcoylenet >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 11:44:33 UTC