- From: Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:35:35 -0400
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 09:50:57PM +0200, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >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"! But then it should be under "For data and systems designers". Right now, it is under "For standards bodies and participants"! I do think it would fit well in "For data and systems 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. I think of "leaders" not just as formal leaders, but as including, for example "thought leaders"... Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 20:36:07 UTC