- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:25:10 -0500
- To: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
There has been some really good content in this thread so far. I really liked the point that Antoine and Jeff identified regarding what pre-web libraries have traditionally called "surrogates" and the need for such a notion on the web--in particular in the Linked Data space. It is an extremely important point which will largely effect how well library data will fit in with the Linked Data community, and the Web in general. I think this very specific point ripples out quite a bit, into how vocabularies are used to describe library materials. Perhaps it is too ambitious but I would like the final report to make recommendations about what vocabularies are useful for making library linked data available, and to identify places where new vocabulary is needed. Kevin and Emmanuelle's point about needing to come up with a compelling elevator pitch is also extremely important. I would like to see some pretty clear language in the report describing a) why library system developers might want to consider using Linked Data, and b) why library professionals should make Linked Data support a requirement when purchasing or developing systems. //Ed
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2011 15:25:44 UTC