RE: Ideas for Recommendations for Report

I may not make a statement for the Library of Congress. - Barbara

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 12:11 PM
To: Tillett, Barbara
Cc: public-lld
Subject: RE: Ideas for Recommendations for Report

Quoting "Tillett, Barbara" <btil@loc.gov>:

>
> I'd also love to see suggestions for a MARC replacement and that 
> process. - bt

Barbara, can you provide a short statement about this that we could build on? I think the issues are:

- what is the logical community to take this on? (assuming not an institution but a broader coalition including semantic web folks and
vendors)
- can we identify a process?
- what will libraries need to make this a reality? (not that it all can be done right away, but for the purposes of planning)

?? There are probably other aspects that we need to cover, so anything else you -- or anyone on the list -- can think of.

kc

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Karen Coyle
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 7:50 PM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: Ideas for Recommendations for Report
>
> 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
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
>



--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet

Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 15:49:36 UTC