Re: Proposal for restructuring the final deliverables

Hi Jodi,

I like you idea of merging Vocs & data with Current situation.
As I advocated yesterday on the call, for me the fact that there are
already data and vocabularies out there is a major fact to be
emphasized in the current situation.

Emma

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org> wrote:
> I like this part:
>
> Metadata element sets like Dublin Core, the RDA elements, SKOS or FOAF;
> Value vocabularies such as LCSH, AGROVOC, VIAF, DDC and GeoNames;
> specific Datasets, e.g., the British National Bibliography, the catalogue of
> the Hungarian national library, the Open Library, CrossRef, Europeana.
> @@TODO: lists can be adapted of course@@
>
> It's definitely going in the right direction, Antoine!!
> I now agree that vocabularies need to be discussed in the main report! Sorry
> I was confused about this earlier today. After taking a closer look, I see
> that the vocabularies section has gotten a lot shorter (even before your
> edits) since the last time I looked, and a lot more general.
> When I look at your "some observations", they look a lot like they describe
> the "current situation". So I would envision folding the vocabulary
> observations into that section (which was called 'issues' not so long ago).
> Then the report structure would look something like this:
> ==General Report==
> Executive summary
> Introduction/Overview/Methodology
> Benefits of Linked Data
> Current Situation
> Recommendations
> ==Technical Report==
> ....
> ==Appendix==
> List of related documents
> For the separate deliverables--the inventory and use case report--I would
> see mentioning them in the executive summary, and
> introduction/overview/methodology section. We might also want to point to
> them in an appendix.
> Could you conceive of those "some observations" as part of the current
> situation? They would have descriptive headings, maybe something like this:
>
> While classification systems are being converted, there is relatively low
> availability of bibliographic datasets
> Quality and support for available sources varies greatly
> Linking across various datasets, within and outside of the library domain,
> has begun, but needs further attention
>
> -Jodi
>
> On 4 Aug 2011, at 22:28, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> In today's discussion, I've suggested that we could try to make the section
> on Available Data shorter *and* keep it in the (one) main report. The idea
> was to remove our lengthy explanations of what our categories are. These
> would be only in the separate longer report on Available Data.
>
> My first attempt is at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2
>
> You can compare withthe current version
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
>
> Is this going in the right direction? Or even, good enough?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
> Is has been (and continues to be) very helpful to use the Reviewer
> Assignment
>
> page to collect references to comments received [1].  I felt that in
> addition
>
> it would be helpful to see these references side-by-side with comments
> received
>
> in the blog, so I created a parallel page, DraftReportReviews, by
>
> cutting-and-pasting from the blog [2].  If we were still receiving alot of
>
> comments, I would propose that we use one or the other (but not both).  But
>
> with the current volume of comments it will be easy to occasionally update
> [2]
>
> from [1] using wiki diffs.
>
> On a Skype call today, the "Issues and Recommendations" sub-group discussed
>
> revisions to its sections in light of comments received.  Since a number of
> the
>
> comments proposed substantial changes to the tone, level of detail, and
>
> organization of these sections, Karen has forked both pages [3,4] -- these
>
> revised pages will be on tomorrow's agenda.
>
> The group also discussed a proposal for restructuring the final deliverables
> as
>
> a whole.  We noted that while praising the quality and usefulness of the
> more
>
> technical sections of the report -- Available Vocabularies and Datasets [5]
> and
>
> Relevant Technologies [6] -- several reviewers felt that the technical
> detail
>
> and jargon was too heavy for a report which aims at convincing non-technical
>
> decision makers.
>
> We propose that the report in its current state [3] be split into two
> separate
>
> deliverables aimed at two significantly different audiences:
>
> -- Deliverable 1 (title something like "Benefits of Library Linked Data,
> with
>
>    Recommendations") for an audience of decision-makers:
>
>    Executive summary
>
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ExecutiveSummary
>
>    Scope
>
>    --
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits#.22Library_Linked_Data.22:_Scope_of_this_report
>
>    Methodology
>
>    -- A 2- or 3-paragraph section, yet to be written, which points to and
> summarizes
>
>       the other two deliverables -- "Technologies, Vocabularies, Datasets"
> and "Use Cases"
>
>       (see below).
>
>    Benefits
>
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits
>
>    Current Situation (was: "Implementation Challenges and Barriers to
> Adoption")
>
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page_take2
>
>    Recommendations
>
>    --
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page_take2
>
> -- Deliverable 2 (title something like "Available Technologies,
> Vocabularies, and
>
>    Datasets for Library Linked Data") for a more technical audience:
>
>    Available Vocabularies and Datasets - an overview
>
>    --
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
>
>    Snapshot of available vocabularies and datasets - in detail
>
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
>
>    Relevant Technologies
>
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
>
> -- Deliverable 3 "Use Cases for Library Linked Data"
>
>    http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport
>
> It looks to me like the first deliverable would end up being about eight
> pages
>
> long -- a nice length, in my opinion, for something which we would like to
>
> see widely distributed and read.  The second and third deliverables could be
> of
>
> arbitrary length.
>
> We feel that separating technical presentation from strategic benefits and
>
> recommendations would solve a number of problems identified by the
> reviewers.
>
> Combining the two documents on vocabularies and datasets -- the longer list
>
> and shorter summary prepared for the main report -- might actually make it
>
> easier for its authors to finalize that deliverable as there would be no
>
> particular need to rewrite sections with the requirement that all technical
>
> topics be described in terms that the technically less-expert readers
>
> of the Recommendations report would understand.
>
> Finally, we felt that it would be desirable to describe, in the
> Recommendations
>
> report, the methodology followed by the XG -- collection of use cases,
>
> collection of pointers to technologies and vocabularies, etc -- and,
> ideally,
>
> to summarize the nature of the use cases collected in a few bullet points.
>
> For discussion tomorrow...
>
> Tom (and Jodi, Karen, Gordon, and Peter)
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportReviewerAssignments
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportReviews
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page_take2
>
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page_take2
>
> [5]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
>
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
>
> [7] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 06:08:46 UTC