Re: Linked Data issues

Just in case Jodi got the impression this didn't resonate -- I think it's an
excellent summary of very real concerns for libraries, and furthermore,
concerns that are _key_, i.e. take the first few slots in a prioritized list
of concerns, for libraries.

I therefore think these should be well covered in our final report.

Cheers,

   Asaf

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>wrote:

> As someone has mentioned, most of the issues we have are not specific to
> Library Linked Data, but rather are important for Linked Data in general.
>
> *A few of my top issues seem more relevant to libraries (and other orgs
> with lots of data) than other organizations:*
> * Handling legacy data
> * Getting sufficient cataloger trust and buy-in -- which requires education
> on both sides
> * Learning to rely on others (as Antoine says: "libraries should perhaps
> learn to rely on data produced by others and not try to produce every
> required data by themselves")
> * Licensing legacy data: what can we open
> * Economic issues around ongoing data production
>
> *Some are ways of ensuring that we *can* rely on others in robust and
> authoritative ways:*
> Trust & provenance -- to aggregate rich statements from everyone, yet
> filter to trusted authorities.
> ** "Trusted authorites" need not be a direct list, but could also be
> "everyone X trusts", "everyone anyone in group G trusts" (and more generally
> "everyone trusted by more than x% of group G"), "everyone not on blacklist
> B", and combinations of these.
> ** "Trust" will also need to take into account "proximity" to relevant
> information (by expertise, proximity to archival source material, etc)
>
> *Finally, I have to emphasize a universal issue -- which I think
> preservation-oriented orgs like libraries take more seriously than most:*
> Continued resolution of URIs (as Tom has expressed quite well)
>
> -Jodi
>
>


-- 
Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov@gmail.com>