- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:48:10 -0700
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
Antoine, this is an important point... however I'm having a hard time putting it into a bullet point. Could you add a bullet (or a sentence or two) to the relevant section in the page? Thanks, kc Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>: > Hi Karen, > > I too support taking Richard's stuff onboard! When I read "syllabi" > below, however, I'm wondering if this is a bit too "traditional", > i.e., focused on bibliography. That's of course important, but when > I think of integrating library data into "formal" (here, academic) > stuff, I would have actually thought of integration of library data > with research data, when this research data puts library objects (or > other museum/archive objects) at the core of their focus. Of course > this would apply especially to cases when library data as part of a > family of LAM data which is interesting to digital humanities > researchers [1], but there might be other institutional groupings > and/or research contexts. > But perhaps I'm now too much into the discussion on potential > benefits, which Ed and the others started, so I'll stop :-) > > Antoine > > [1] One concrete example we can point to is > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_Civil_War_Data_150 > > >> Richard, I tried to get as many of your ideas as I could into the >> recommendations as bullet points (I could imagine returning to your >> blog for some help with a more textual explanation). Take a look >> and see if you have other ideas that should be included. Note that >> I created a new section: >> >> Encourage interoperability between library data and data from other sources >> >> * in particular other cultural heritage communities, but not only >> * define sharing as data exchange that will not be just libraries >> making their data available, but that data can flow from other >> communities to libraries as well >> * include a discussion of user-provided information, from the more >> formal (inclusion in syllabi) to the informal (user tagging) >> >> Given that LD is all about interoperability, the general concept is >> a given, but it seems to me that there are some particular issues >> with libraries in this area, so that's what I was trying to address. >> >> kc >> >> Quoting Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 15:48:46 UTC