Re: Copy-editing Benefits - attn: Emma

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 3 sept. 2011 à 01:32, Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de> a écrit :

> Question for Emma below...
> 
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 11:52:46AM -0700, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> I am adding the following points to ConversionStyle [2]:
>>> -- "e.g.," and "i.e.," (_with_ comma)
>>> -- Avoid contractions: "don't" should be written: "do not"
>>> -- "websites" (lower case)
>>> -- Two spaces after a full stop:
>>>  "Sentence one.  Sentence two" - and NOT: "Sentence one. Sentence two."
>> 
>> Tom, not only is this not the norm today, the double spaces are not
>> visible in HTML, which reduces all instances of multiple spaces to
>> single in display.
> 
> Hmm, probably should have known...  So I guess we don't have to bother with
> fixing any extra spaces we find?
> 
>>> -- "cataloguing" (with a "u") - YES?
>> 
>> No.
> 
> Right. Already changed - see my other mail and ConversionStyle.
> 
>>>   Adoption of mainstream Linked Data technology will give libraries a wider
>>>   choice in vendors while broadening the potential user base of their
>>>   platform beyond the library. The use of standard Linked Data formats will
>>>   also allow libraries to recruit from and interact with a larger pool of
>>>   developers.
>>> 
>>> Rationale: I do not understand what was meant by "broadening the
>>> user base (and
>>> thus capacity) of traditional library vendors."
>> 
>> Me, neither, but I think some folks feel that libraries would be
>> able to make more use of technology from non-library vendors if
>> their standards were less library specific. As an example, libraries
>> are now using RFID tag technology. The tags they use are not
>> specific to libraries, but integration of tag-reading software and
>> hardware with library systems is probably quite different to the
>> task of integrating the reading technology with, say, warehouse
>> inventory systems. So even where we use the same hardware, our
>> software needs are a burden to potential vendors. (Not to mention
>> our jargon!)
> 
> Thank you for the clarification, though I'm not quite sure I entirely get the
> point, and at any rate, that's not how I read the sentence:
> 
> [1] Adoption of mainstream technology will allow libraries a wider choice in
>    vendors, meanwhile broadening the user base (and thus capacity) of
>    traditional library vendors. 
> 
> As I see it, the point in the second part of that sentence is 
> now handled under "Benefits to developers and vendors", which says:
> 
>    Library vendors that support Linked Data will be able to market their
>    products outside of the library world, ...
> 
> I therefore propose to cut the second part of the sentence from the section
> "Benefits to organizations", to read [2]:
> 
>    Adoption of mainstream Linked Data technology will give libraries a wider
>    choice in vendors, and the use of standard Linked Data formats will allow
>    libraries to recruit from and interact with a larger pool of developers.
> 
> IN SUMMARY... 
> 
> Before (as I found it):
> 
>    Adoption of mainstream technology will allow libraries a wider choice in
>    vendors, meanwhile broadening the user base (and thus capacity) of
>    traditional library vendors. Libraries will also be able to recruit from
>    and interact with a larger developer pool, when data formats are mainstream
>    rather than library-specific.
> 
> ...and after (as I have edited it):
> 
>    Adoption of mainstream Linked Data technology will give libraries a wider
>    choice in vendors, and the use of standard Linked Data formats will allow
>    libraries to recruit from and interact with a larger pool of developers.
> 
> ...given that "Benefits to developers and vendors" says:
> 
>    Library vendors that support Linked Data will be able to market their
>    products outside of the library world, ...
> 
> Emma, do you agree?

No problem for me. Actually, this paragraph was proposed by Jodi as clarification of the redundant idea (redundant because it was both in  benefits for Organizations and benefits for developers) that with LD, library technology would be more useful even outside library world.  As long as this idea is still there, and that's the case with your rewriting, I'm happy enough with it.

Emma

> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Benefits&oldid=6054
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Benefits&diff=6088&oldid=6084
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 3 September 2011 14:12:40 UTC