...

1. Pragmatic value. They have real value to our core constituencies: librarians, researchers, teachers, students, etc. E.g., they help a researcher discover resources, or help a librarian make better acquisition decisions. Such values might be aiding discovery or getting more value from existing resources.

2. Community added-value. They leverage the unique value that librarians and scholars add to materials when they select, annotate, or reference the resources.

3. Cross-institutional data. They clearly demonstrate the value in combining data from our three different institutions - ideally in a way that shows how that value will grow as more institutions join in.
4. Leverage existing data and services. They leverage existing efforts in this space, specifically including VIAF, SNAC, BIBFRAME, and existing faculty profiling systems like CAP, Profiles, and VIVO, as well as existing LOD collections.
5. Integration into the Web. They show how research libraries can integrate with existing popular and useful Web sites and services, e.g., Wikipedia.
6. Cross-discipline. They show examples from a variety of disciplines.
7. Help core missions. They demonstrate value for teaching and learning; scientific research; research in the humanities; and archival research.
8. Multi-data. They cover a broad range of scholarly information resource types: articles, monographs, images, datasets, archival materials, cultural materials, etc.
9. Unusual data. They show how non-traditional data (from the point of view of libraries and related projects) can be useful.
10. Media "photogenic": They clarify to the mainstream media the value of LOD and this project, and excite that media about the prospects
11. They show interesting ways to use the aggregated data for analysis or visualization.
12. They take advantage of data on how the materials are being used. (??)

...

1. We need to be careful about depending on external, non-institutional sources of linked data.

Use Cases (suggestions, in draft form)

...