Project Number: |
RE 4004 (RE) | |
Project Title: |
DESIRE II - Development of a European Service for Information on Research and Education II | |
Deliverable Number: |
D3.1 | |
Deliverable Title: |
Recommendations on Implementation of Quality Ratings in an RDF Environment | |
Deliverable Type: |
RP | |
Deliverable Kind: |
RE | |
Principal Reviewer: |
Name |
Mark Field |
Address |
The Library Association, Ridgmount Street WC1 7AE | |
Mark.field@la-hq.org.uk | ||
Telephone |
0171 636 7543 | |
Fax |
0171 436 | |
Credentials |
Foresight Programme, information management consulting | |
Other Reviewers: |
(if relevant) | |
Summary: |
Relevant |
4 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) |
State-of-Art |
4 | |
Meets Objectives |
3 | |
Clarity |
3 | |
Value to Users |
4 | |
Specific Criticisms |
1 |
Dismissive of some technology without explanation |
2 |
Possible drift between different technical vocabularies | |
3 |
Requires considerable further reading outside narrow specialism | |
4 |
Assumes common understanding of some terms | |
Developer Response: |
1 |
Section 2.1.2.2 has been amended to include an explanation of why HTML is not adequate for the described applications. |
2 |
The glossary has been expanded to explain the DESIRE usage of certain technical terms. | |
3 |
Given the subject matter of this report, the document necessarily touches upon a number of technical issues which cannot be fully explained without reference to further text. We have tried to find a balance through including some technical details in the report while referring to works such as the RDF specification to avoid unnecessary duplication. Whilst much of the document should be readily accessible for non-technical readers, we have included some extra detail where no suitable background material exists. | |
4 |
The glossary has been expanded to clarify term usage within the report. Throughout the document we use the term `vocabulary' in a manner intended to be consistent both with common-sense and with the technical use of the term within the PICS and RDF specifications. The term `vocabulary' is, as suggested in the reviewer response, broadly analogous to `lexicon', 'dictionary' or (one sense of) `language'. We avoid the latter as this might create confusion with other uses of that term in the computing industry. The terms `label' and `bureau' in this report are intended to have the same meaning as in the PICS and RDF specifications, and as their corresponding informal meaning. | |
(Free Text Detailed Report 2-3 Pages)
The initial use of English does not match the body of the report: it is
convoluted, while the body of the report used clear English. The introductory
text is important to convey the DESIRE `culture' and aims.
I felt that some obvious technologies were dealt with too dismissively, given
that their treatment was not accompanied by explanation: ie that of HTML - I
was expecting to see some comparison with XML if only to justify the
recommendations involving XML later in the report.
I was repeatedly concerned at definitions which are known to be problematic in
the information quality field ie `bureaux' p11 `labels' p14 are used very
freely by various interest groups. The DESIRE usage of these terms must be
articulated. I would have liked to know how the use of `vocabulary' compares`
with `language' or `lexicon' or `dictionary' which might be close synonyms.
While I believe I derived some insight and useful information from the report,
it does require considerable further technical reading for non-specialist.
This is (however) an excellent document promising some widely applicable
solutions to harmonisation problems for large scale information services.
Mark Field, Professional Adviser, Special Libraries and Information Services, The Library Association