- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:33:52 -0400
- To: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Hi Richard, On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 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. Thanks for your blog post, and for mentioning it in here. I think you make an *extremely* important point that Linked Data allows traditional library data to participate in a larger ecosystem of data on the Web. And that this is actually a natural evolution of cooperative cataloging models. Perhaps I'm being overly naive, but the walls between the descriptive practices of archives, museums and libraries make less and less sense as web technology has been adopted. Indeed, many of the interests of the museum and archival community are reflected in the use cases that the working group collected [1]. So it would be a shame to under-represent them in our final report. Would you be willing to join Ross Singer and myself on Skype to talk about the "benefits" section of the report on Monday of next week at 14:00:00 UTC? Anyone else who is reading this and wants to participate please just respond on list. My apologies for not coordinating this better with Emma and Tom (who expressed interest earlier). We can adjust the time a bit, but we definitely should meet Monday so there is time to write down our thoughts for the discussion on Thursday's telecon. //Ed [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Cases [2] http://bit.ly/gVdyTb > > 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, 25 March 2011 13:34:30 UTC