- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 17:09:05 +0100
- To: Uldis Bojars <captsolo@gmail.com>
- CC: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi Uldis, (and Jodi, as I see she started making changes on the wiki about this new "social" cluster) Quick feedback on selected points... > 1) Social annotation > >[...] > > 2) Social recommendations > > Recommend books based on social data (annotations, usage data) > - use user activity (how many people annotated a book, looked at a > book, read it, ...) for determining its relevance to the user and in > recommending books to look at. I find 1) and 2) very interesting: in fact is a continuation of the other, isn't it? > How does Google Books rank book search results? I found this: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/inside-the-google-books-algorithm/65422/ It's not really clear how precisely they do it, and where they find the relevant usage data (except for "web search frequency"; do they fetch data from services like Worldcat? Amazon?). But it points at the direction you hinted at yourself regarding using user activity. > 3) Location/ownership info > > An open publication catalog + information about where these > publications can be found. > > To add a social aspect, let users of this service indicate what > publications they have and if / on what conditions they would lend > these books. As a result participants would not only be able to find > books in nearby collections (presumably covered by the Use Case Find > materials in the closest physical collection) but could also enable > peer-to-peer book-swapping (though would require a critical mass of > users from any given location before it becomes useful for people from > that location). I'm not sure I understand this use case: who are the "users"/"participants" who hold publications and could swap them? End users or libraries themselves? > Related: Open Library (linked data via the Use Case Open Library Data) > could provide information about publications. > > 4) Add social features to ILSs > > Simple and not-so-interesting social features are buttons for sharing > an item on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Not that interesting to us as they > are already present on many sites (and probably on some ILSs) and > there is probably little use for linked data there. If the idea here is to share book data a la Facebook OpenGraph API, I think this is very linked data-compatible :-) In fact I would see such scenario as a better motivation for putting the "SEO" case [1] in your social cluster [2]. For now I can't easily see the reason for putting it there. There's not much "social" stuff in that SEO case! Cheers, Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Use_Case_SEO [2]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCases#Cluster:_Social_Uses
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 16:10:50 UTC