- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:12:57 +0200
- To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
On 9/6/11 10:35 PM, Tom Baker wrote: > 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". Yes, done! Antoine > >>> 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 >
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 06:10:59 UTC