Re: Transition to Community Group ?

Anders,

I agree with you and I am glad that you raised these quite fundamental 
points.

Cheers,

Kai

On 05.08.2011 12:03, Anders Söderbäck wrote:
> I have not yet resonded to the call for comments on the LLD XG Final
> Report. Many of my thoughts on the report have already been raised by
> others (library vendors, what is the purpose of the report? etc), and
> perhaps one of my remaining issues can be summarized as answer to the
> suggestion on a transition to Community Group.
>
> I think such a transition is a good idea, and agree that it's a good
> idea to involve parties from other domains. Personally, however, I have
> some concerns regarding a LAM group. Working at a university library, I
> spend 95% of my time thinking about scholarly infrastructure and how to
> connect traditional cataloguing practices with institutional
> repositories and scientific publications, bibliometrics, OA publishing,
> research data etc. When we do digitization and preservation, it's from a
> scholarly perspective rather than from a cultural heritage perspective.
> Working with scholarly publishing is also where we spend most, if not
> all, of the university library budget.
>
> While I don't think publishing and scholarly infrastructure is
> incompatible with the interests of archives and museums, I also don't
> see it how the changing nature of scientific communication will be (or
> can be) addressed within a LAM CG. From a university perspective, I'd be
> much more interested in crossing over to the publishing domain. This is
> also where I find the best examples on projects where a linked data
> approach would be really beneficial: Link resolver knowledge base
> aggregation (see for example KBART, www.uksg.org/kbart, which would also
> be a great opportunity to have an interesting, practical discussion with
> library system vendors) and researcher identification (e.g. ORCID, ISNI,
> and possibly VIAF).
>
> I don't have anything against a LAM CG as such. It's probably a useful
> to a lot of people. But to be blunt, I have little interest in working
> with library linked data from a cultural heritage perspective.
> Personally, I'd be much more interested in something like a Linked Data
> and Scholarly Infrastructure CG.
>
> I know LD has been discussed in other scholarly infrastructure forums,
> like SITS, and I am not sure if there really is a need for a W3C
> community group. However, I think W3C could serve as a good forum to
> actually bring many different parties together. But maybe I am wrong
> about not being able to address scholarly infrastructure within a LAM
> CG? I'd welcome any thoughts people on this list might have.
>
> best regards
> Anders Söderbäck
>
>
> *Anders Söderbäck*
>
> Teamleader ІDept. of e-resources
>
> Stockholms University Library
>
> Universitetsvägen 14 D
>
> 106 91 Stockholm
>
> phone: +46 (0)8 16 27 79
>
> cell: 073 460 48 74
>
> anders.soderback@sub.su.se <mailto:anders.soderback@sub.su.se>
>
> www.sub.su.se <http://www.sub.su.se/>
>
>
> Från: Emmanuelle Bermes <manue@figoblog.org <mailto:manue@figoblog.org>>
> Datum: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:15:14 +0200
> Till: "public-lld@w3.org <mailto:public-lld@w3.org>" <public-lld@w3.org
> <mailto:public-lld@w3.org>>
> Ämne: Transition to Community Group ?
>
> As discussed during our 2011-05-12 telecon [1], where Harry Halpin was
> invited, the W3C has created a new type of groups, called community
> groups (CG).
> CGs are expected to replace the previous incubator (XG) process ;
> actually, all living incubator groups were invited to transition to
> Community Groups.
>
> The Library Linked Data XG has not transitioned though, mainly for 2
> reasons :
> - the XG was close to its end, even if we asked for a short extension,
> we still believe our work will be finished by the end of August;
> - if we were to transition to CG, we feel that it should not be "only" a
> library CG, but a LAM CG (Libraries, Archives, Museums).
>
> This topic was discussed during our 2011-06-30 telecon [2].
> The minutes of this teleconference show that there is probably a
> consensus within the XG that we should transition to CG. While several
> local groups (like the ALA Linked Data Interest Group) or
> domain-specific groups (like the IFLA SW Special Interest Group) are
> being created, there is probably still a need for a more global
> initiative, and W3C can host such a global, cross-domain group.
> Moreover, CGs are not bound in time nor in members type (anyone can
> join) or number.
>
> If the LLD XG is to transition to a LAM CG, that raises at least 2 issues :
> - it would be necessary to draft a new charter (possibly based on or
> inspired by the LLD XG charter). It wouldn't be just transitionning,
> rather creating a new group as a result of the work of the XG.
> - we would need new chair(s). While Antoine, Tom and myself have been
> very happy to chair the XG, and all 3 of us acknowledge that it a was a
> great experience and very much appreciate the commitment of the group
> members, it is not possible for the 3 of us to maintain the level of
> involvement that is needed to launch a group in the coming weeks.
>
> For these reasons, we propose NOT TO transition the XG to community
> group right now. The creation of a LAM CG would be highly desirable, and
> we do support the idea. If anyone feels ready to volunteer to drive the
> creation of such a group, we will also be happy to help him/her/them
> with the W3C process and contacts.
>
> Feedback from anyone on this list is very welcome.
> Emmanuelle
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/12-lld-minutes.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/06/30-lld-minutes.html


-- 
Kai Eckert
Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim
Stellv. Leiter Abteilung Digitale Bibliotheksdienste
Schloss Schneckhof West / 68131 Mannheim
Tel. 0621/181-2946  Fax 0621/181-2918

Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 14:41:18 UTC