- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:30:41 -0400
- To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
- Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
This is looking good - the point is very clear now! I tweaked the wording of one sentence [1]. Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Benefits&diff=5835&oldid=5829 On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:19:35AM -0400, Ross Singer wrote: > Ok, I've added this to the document: > > Another powerful outcome of the reuse of these unique identifiers is > that it allows data providers to contribute portions of their data as > statements. Under our current document-based ecosystem, data exchange > is always in the form of entire records, which are presumed to be > complete descriptions. > > In a graph-based architecture, however, an organization can supply > individual statements about a resource, and all statements provided > about a particular uniquely identified resource can be aggregated into > the global graph. For example, one library could contribute their > country's national bibliography number for a resource, while another > might supply a translated title. At the same time, library services > could accept these statements from other sources, as they do today > when they take in book cover images from outside services. In a linked > data ecosystem, there is literally no contribution too small and it is > this attribute that makes it possible for important connections to > come from previously unknown sources. > > Thanks! > -Ross. > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > You're welcome. And I like the example of providing a simple national > > bibliographic number. I was groping for an example like that but failed. > > Maybe you can make that edit in the wiki text? > > > > kc > > > > Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>: > > > >> Hi Karen, accentuating the positive definitely presents a better tone. > >> > >> One of the points I would like to emphasize here is that contributions > >> need not be as dramatic as supplying, say, authority data vs. > >> bibliographic data, but can be as mundane as simply providing a > >> national bibliography number or simply the title and author translated > >> into your local language, etc. I think that notion of the big picture > >> being comprised of seemingly innocuous atoms would help people realize > >> that they can actually participate in this environment. > >> > >> Your edits definitely make this much cleaner, thanks so much! > >> -Ross. > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> Ross, I think the "one sentence" was a challenge, not a realistic > >>> expectation :-) > >>> > >>> I tried taking out some of the statements that people might see as > >>> "negative" (e.g. "very little to provide"): > >>> > >>> Another powerful outcome of the reuse of these unique identifiers is > >>> that it allows data providers to contribute portions of their data as > >>> statements. Under our > >>> current document-based ecosystem, data exchange is always in the form of > >>> entire records, > >>> which are presumed to be complete descriptions. > >>> In a graph-based architecture, however, > >>> an organization can supply individual statements > >>> about a resource, and all statements provided about a particular > >>> uniquely identified resource can be aggregated into the global graph. > >>> For example, libraries can contribute authoritative names apart from the > >>> full bibliographic description, and this can be used by others. At the > >>> same > >>> time, library services could accept statements from other sources, as > >>> they do today when they take in book cover images from outside services. > >>> In > >>> a > >>> linked data ecosystem, there is literally no contribution too small > >>> and it is this attribute that makes it possible for important > >>> connections to come from previously unknown of sources. > >>> > >>> a suggestion > >>> kc > >>> > >>> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>: > >>> > >>>> Hi all, in the last conf call I was given an action to figure out a > >>>> way to incorporate the "essence" of the Stone Soup analogy (which was > >>>> clearly causing problems for people) into something more palatable. > >>>> The charge was to do it in a sentence -- I failed at one sentence, but > >>>> here's a paragraph I'm proposing for people to distill and wordsmith: > >>>> > >>>> <current_text> > >>>> By using globally unique identifiers to designate works, places, > >>>> people, events, subjects, and other objects or concepts of interest, > >>>> memory institutions allow resources to be cited across a broad range > >>>> of data sources and thus make their metadata descriptions more richly > >>>> accessible. The Web's Domain Name System assures stability and trust > >>>> by putting these identifiers into a regulated and well-understood > >>>> ownership and maintenance context. This is fully compatible with the > >>>> long-term mandate of memory institutions. Libraries, and memory > >>>> institutions generally, are in a unique position to provide trusted > >>>> metadata for resources of long-term cultural importance as data on the > >>>> Web. > >>>> </current_text> > >>>> <added_paragraph> > >>>> Another powerful outcome of the reuse of these unique identifiers is > >>>> that it allows data providers to contribute statements about > >>>> resources, even if they only have very little to provide. Under our > >>>> current document-based ecosystem, it is not efficient for > >>>> organizations that only know a fact or two about a given resource to > >>>> publish it; the host institution has a relatively useless metadata > >>>> record and consumers must devise ways of discovering, identifying and > >>>> integrating these statements. In a graph-based architecture, however, > >>>> there is no downside to an organization supplying anything they can > >>>> about a resource, since all statements provided about a particular > >>>> uniquely identified resource aggregate into the global graph. In a > >>>> linked data ecosystem, there is literally no contribution too small > >>>> and it is this attribute that makes it possible for important > >>>> connections to come from the unlikeliest of sources. > >>>> </added_paragraph> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> -Ross. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 Wednesday, 24 August 2011 16:31:37 UTC