Re: Proposal for restructuring the final deliverables

On 8/10/11 11:51 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
>> I think this will work after editing, and especially after finding good "headlines" for all of the pieces.
>
>
> I'll have a try at modifying Jodi's first attempt!


Here's a try. I have to admit I'm not more inspired than that ;-)
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_As_Current_Situation&diff=5662&oldid=5660

Antoine


>
>
>> The first section under "already available as linked data" doesn't make much sense to me -- maybe the point there is that there is work on authority data but we don't yet have much bib data out in LD space?
>
>
> Yes, that was the intention.
> Is
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section&diff=5659&oldid=5654
> better readable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
>
>
>>
>> Quoting Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>:
>>
>>> Ok, glad you think it could work to consolidate current issues with vocabs and data into the current situation section, Emma.
>>> Since the vocabulary section would need some editing to work as 'current situation', I'd also like to hear what others think.
>>> I pasted the *current* text into a temporary page to show what it might look like:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/User:Jschneid4
>>>
>>> I've made a copy of Antoine's edits (so as not to destroy what he was working on) and added headings, so others can edit this if you like:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_As_Current_Situation
>>>
>>> You'll notice that the deliverable and definitions are not there. I split that part out into another place:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Intro
>>> I think parts of this belongs in different places but I want to make sure these don't get lost!
>>> In particular, for the definitions, I propose adding a very brief addition to "scope of this report" (which is on the Benefits page):
>>> Though Linked Data technology changes the way to consider traditional library data categorization, we could classify these available resources into three (non mutually exclusive) main families that reflect library practices:
>>> 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@@
>>>
>>> Sorry to be adding pages like crazy! I'm having trouble figuring out how to experiment without forking pages, and I'd welcome suggestions of better ways to handle this!
>>>
>>> -Jodi
>>>
>>> On 5 Aug 2011, at 07:08, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 Wednesday, 10 August 2011 10:05:23 UTC