I've been thinking about these issues a lot. I'm one of those people
who has a lot of contact with librarians who are struggling to
understand this stuff, and frankly, the more that's missing from this
doc the more the burden falls on those of us who are out there, talking
to people, trying to get them to read this and connect the dots.
One possibility that came to my mind as this discussion continued was
that maybe these missing dots belong in the introductory portion rather
than in the body of the document. Heck, I might even be willing to
draft something next week, when I get out from under a few more deadlines.
Diane
Stephens, Owen wrote:
>> in fact, and though I understand the desire not to go too far into the
>> bushes, I think we ignore those concerns at our peril.
>>
>
> Bit late getting back on this - my feeling was that the document got
> this just about right in terms of the example - walking a line between
> ensuring appeal to those from the library world (choosing bib data as
> the example, giving LCSH as an example of a vocab) while showing how
> DCAP can enable metadata schemes to be used together (exploiting FOAF
> and dcterms).
>
> It seems like you feel it could go further in pre-emptively tackling
> some of the fears that we know/anticipate in the library community. I
> understand this, but I'm not sure I feel this document is the right
> place for it. Happy to gently disagree with you on this :)
>
> Owen
>
>
|