- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:50:57 +0200
- To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 9/6/11 5:28 PM, Tom Baker wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 12:45:01AM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: >> I do like the new heading very much. But I've got a question on this >> sub-section, still, while checking the section. Why is in in the >> recommendations "for standard bodies and participants"? It seems to me that >> it would fit better amont the recs for library leadership (from the >> perspective of the ones who make decisions on starting such endeavors) or the >> recs for system designers. Any opinion? > > Very good point. Standards bodies will not design services, but library > leaders can direct the services to be designed. Besides, library leaders get > off relatively easy, with just two Recommendations to follow, while standards > bodies have four... Moving this point to the Library Leadership section would > balance things out -- three and three :-) Yes :-) But on second thought, if we keep the section like it is now, its title "Design and test user services based on Linked Data capabilities" reads naturally like a documentation for "designers"! > BTW, we have headings for bodies, participants, designers, librarians, > archivists, and... leadership. Shouldn't that be "For library leaders"? Unless there's a strong argument against, I prefer to keep it like this. "leaders" has a strong connotation to me, which is less obvious in "leadership". A bit as if "leadership" was leaving more room for people who are not formal leaders (library director, department heads) to step in and battle for moving things forwards at a higher-level. But maybe that's just me. Antoine
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 19:49:00 UTC