- From: Daniel Vila <dvila@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:32:28 +0200
- To: András Micsik <micsik@sztaki.hu>
- Cc: public-lld@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAEiZzvwVf6QZdMauW=jyDHZ2yaNakAN3ok65DVZveAbP2AsgAA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi András, Thank you very much for your detailed and useful comments on the report. I will analyse them in detail and try to address them, but for now I wanted to say that I do really appreciate the time you have taken reviewing the report. I will answer to this email as soon as I work on it. Cheers, Daniel 2011/7/8 András Micsik <micsik@sztaki.hu> > Dear All, > > please find below my comments on http://www.w3.org/2005/** > Incubator/lld/wiki/**UseCaseReport<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport> > . > > Andras > > > In general, the heading style of scenarios within clusters in the > generalized list makes it harder to read the document and to see its > structure. Scenario titles are bolder than cluster titles and thus are too > much emphasized. > > I wonder if there would be an option to avoid the long listing of > individual use cases. It is too long to be read by any usually busy > colleague. The one paragraph texts are too long for grasping the LD > relations, and too short to understand the case fully. One possibility would > be to filter some favourite use cases for each cluster. Another to provide > visual groupings of clickable use case titles (without Use Case prefix, > preferrably). By clicking on the title, the reader would get the full use > case. Groupings can be based on: > - the original clusters > - imaginary use cases and working services/prototypes > - 'atomic' use cases describing a well-defined and focused functionality > (e.g. Use Case Subject Search) > vs. generic services (e.g. VIAF) > vs. content-centric approaches (e.g. Civil War Data 150) > > Below some smaller details regarding the text: > > --Bibliographic data: > > Semantics standardization => Semantic standardization > > ... ensuring a standard element set (and interpretable element values, if > possible) > > Tagging web resources...: a simple example would be useful here to better > understand what is being tagged and how. > > --Authority data: > > Metadata addition by users while uploading documents > could be changed to: > Authority data in the publication/authoring process > > --Vocabulary alignment: > > I'd put a sentence on the importance and example use of (controlled) > vocabularies in libraries, unless the word vocabulary is well-known in this > sense for most librarians. Multilingual discovery is possible using > multilingual vocabularies. > > --Archives and heterogeneous data: > > Data management improvement subsection is written in 'imperative' style. I > would emphasize data interoperability here by putting this word in a > subsection title. > > --Citations: > > Publication representation enhancement => Machine understandable citations > Navigation enhancement => Navigable citations > > --Summary of individual Use Cases: > > Use case Pode: enduser services > > Use case language technology: briding across languages > > The description of the Mendeley use case is slightly misleading: its main > goal is "a more advanced way of understanding paper-paper, paper-researcher, > and researcher-researcher relationships". The "existing Mendeley system" > should be replaced with "current practice". > > Use case SEO: otpimizing > >
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 14:32:57 UTC