W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > April 2011

Minutes from Thursday's LLD meeting

From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:04:01 +0100
Message-Id: <07B707C8-48B1-4CE0-A76E-61303E7B6364@deri.org>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
The minutes of Thursday's call are at

A text version follows.

Sorry for the delay, and please let me know of any corrections needed!




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                LLD XG

14 Apr 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0025.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-lld-irc


          antoine, Jodi, Asaf, AlexanderH, emma, GordonD, kefo,
          pmurray, TomB, jeff_, Marcia, Uldis, rsinger, edsu, rayd,
          digikim, jneubert

          Kai, Daniel, Felix




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]ADMIN
         9. [13]USE CASES
        10. [14]HOUSECLEANING
        11. [15]AOB
     * [16]Summary of Action Items

   <antoine> Previous: 2011-04-07

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html

   <kefo> oh no. Sorry, my regrets - I have a conflicting meeting.

   <TomB> can you all hear me?

   I can hear you ok, TomB

   <Uldis> audio is breaking up, can't hear TomB either

   <edsu> i have to leave the telecon early, unfortunately

   <edsu> but thought i would listen while i can

   <TomB> having trouble dialing in - waiting for operator assistance.
   Can Antoine or Emmanuelle please start with the admin details?


   RESOLUTION: To accept last week's minutes

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html

   Antoine: In an upcoming telcon (possibly next week), Harry Halpin
   (or someone else from W3C) will talk about the possibility of a W3C
   Community Group forming after this group finishes. W3C Community
   Group is more informal. This would be an interesting way to continue
   the work that has been done in this group.

   <ww> harry++

   TomB: Dialing in with a phone now.
   ... Next item is the Asia-Pacific teleconference. Dixon and Hideoki
   have expressed interest. There is a doodle poll:

     [19] http://www.doodle.com/e86qabb6kegceagr


     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0026.html

   Most likely dates are April 27th or 28th. The hour is expected to be
   9 PM on the U.S. West Coast, midnight on the U.S. East Coast, which
   is early AM hours for European time.

   Ed: Would it be ok for Dan Chudnov to sit in on that call? (Japan

   TomB: Sure, Ed.

   TomB: I did a significant restructuring of draft report. I also
   emoved the draft text for now, so it's now a list of

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport

   TomB We also have some separate deliverables:
   ... Use Case Report (Daniel is working on this)
   ... LLD Vocabularies and Datasets (we'll discuss this later on the
   ... There was an action on Kim to update the transcluded version of
   the report.

   <scribe> ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the
   report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in
   tes.html#action06] -- continues

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06


   TomB: Benefits of LD for libraries will be discussed in an upcoming
   call, in 2 weeks.

   Ross: We decided against turning the benefits lists into stories...
   it would be redundant.

   <scribe> ACTION: Cluster owners to check the bullet-point list in
   reflects their understanding and covers relevant points [recorded in
   tes.html#action04] -- continues

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
     [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action04

   <scribe> ACTION: edsu, emma, rsinger to create narrative text and
   add to bullet-points [recorded in
   tes.html#action05] -- continues

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action05


   TomB: There are two wiki pages... which one should we be looking at?

   <digikim_> I have some problem in contactin irc.w3.org

   <scribe> ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the
   report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in
   tes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06

   <digikim_> Jodi: about my task: based on Thomas Baker email on the
   list, the DraftReport wikipage is outdated, so I did not proceed at
   the moment with the transclusion task

   <Jodi> thanks digikim :)

   <TomB> @digikim - it makes sense to hold off on transclusion for now

   <digikim_> TomB: yes


   TomB: Recommendations is being drafted as the second half of the
   draft issues page


     [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page

   TomB: I'm not sure if we want a different term. Generally,
   'requirements', means what needs to be achieved in general, to be
   extracted from the issues. But when I think of requirements, I
   assume that there's a specific application that is being designed.

   TomB: LLD is such a large thing that I have a little bit of
   difficulty calling this requirements. Does anyone else have a
   problem with calling this 'requirements'?
   ... The content is pretty clear, but do we want to call the section
   'requirements'? Or is it a non-issue?

   <Jodi> I'm not sure it's a nonissue. But what else can it be called?

   <Asaf> I do see your point

   <emma> issues ?

   TomB: "What needs to be done?" is another possibility

   <GordonD> What needs to be done +1

   <Jodi> agree w/Gordon: +1 to What needs to be done -- but offline
   discussion will help

   <emma> +1, at least that's clear !

   TomB: Alright, let's take this offline for further discussion


   TomB: This is the section that we want to spend the most time on

   <antoine> someone wants to jump in?

   TomB: Antoine, Jeff, Marcia, William, would anyone like to jump in
   and introduce this?

   <marcia> antoine

   <Jodi> (deafening silence...)

   Antoine: I sent an email to the list yesterday morning:
   on the status of the "LLD vocabularies and datasets" deliverable. We
   are focusing on the deliverable first, before focusing on the
   "available data" section of the report

     [28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0015.html

   Antoine: This draft, for the moment, contains 2 main sections. The
   first is on metadata element sets.
   Every metadata element set mentioned in the use cases is given a
   short description -- a 1 line description, its xmlns name space, and
   a link to the use cases which mention it.
   These are metadata element sets like Dublin Core, VOID, SKOS, ...
   ... Many of these element sets are connected together. Some reuse
   others; some specialize others.
   ... This is a crucial element of having these elements published as
   LD, for the data consumer or for the people who are managing these
   elements sets.

     [29] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset

   Antoine: The graph is a draft -- just a drawing to show what we are
   aiming at. We will follow the conventions set by Bernard and his
   colleagues (see link)

   <antoine> [30]http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/

     [30] http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/

   <GordonD> +1 Mondeca stuff

   Antoine: We also have some Metadata Element Sets that are not yet
   LD, some not even being worked on at the moment. Should we include
   those in the same way as the LD elements? Feedback welcome!
   ... We also have some questions on MODS and PREMIS -- what is the
   status of these for the moment? Does anyone know?

   <Jodi> Maybe the metadata element sets that aren't yet LD should go
   into requirements/what needs to be done?

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that I put a placeholder in
   the document at
   #Definitions_and_scope for defining

     [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Definitions_and_scope

   TomB: I took the liberty of putting in a placeholder at the
   beginning of the document, for definitions and scope
   ... someplace in this deliverable we need to refer to the metadata
   element set, value vocabulary, and dataset.
   ... Those definitions are already on the wiki:

     [32] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Definitions

   Antoine: Yes, it makes sense to have this at the start, we had this
   ... The second section is on value vocabularies and datasets:
   ... both of them are grouped here because we want to position that
   section together with the CKAN LLD group
   ... The CKAN group is dealing with both value vocabularies and
   datasets. This may not be practical for the deliverable, but it's
   what we started with.
   ... A bit of a presentation with the LLD group

     [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Relevant_LLD_Metadata_element_sets_-_anno_2011
     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Value_vocabularies_and_Datasets


   Antoine: William has started to visualize the content of the CKAN
   LLD group as a cloud, to make it analogous to the LOD cloud, but
   focused on the library domain.

   <ww> at the moment, i am re-adding in the void part so that we can
   easily work with inter-dataset links and such

   Antoine: Your input would be welcome here. The screenshot here is
   William's idea, and he's continuing to work on it:
   ... One idea is to make links between the datasets explicit. Please
   share other ideas!

     [35] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LLD-Cloud-Draft.png


     [36] http://semantic.ckan.net/viz/group.html?group=http://ckan.net/group/lld

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that the text in
   plained#Definitions is more detailed than text already in

     [37] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Definitions

   <marcia> [38]http://ckan.net/group/bibliographic

     [38] http://ckan.net/group/bibliographic

   Antoine: This should give a nice overview of what is published
   already, so then we want to dive into each dataset and value
   vocabulary, similar to what was done in the first section for the
   metadata element sets
   ... We were lucky to be able to reuse Marcia's webpage which already
   describes many of these value vocabularies.
   ... There's more work left for the second section, we'll populate
   this in the next couple of weeks.
   ... We have a bit of hesitation: Should we list everything that's in
   the LLD cloud (even though it might not be mentioned in the use
   cases)? Should we list everything that's mentioned in the use cases,
   even if it's not in LLD yet?
   ... So far, we want to make explicit what's available already AND
   what's not yet available. Opinions/feedback welcome!
   ... Finally for the datasets we'll give descriptions, but reuse is
   more limited, so we'll focus less on describing them.
   ... For a newcomer, reuse is more key.
   ... For example instance data about books may not be as interesting.
   ... Opinions welcome!

   TomB: For the final step, will this be published in HTML or a wiki

   Antoine: An HTML document would be ideal, reusing the W3C Group Note

   TomB: Is there a nice routine for converting from wiki to HTML

   Antoine: Not sure -- W3C doesn't have wiki templates.

   TomB: A practical issue is that a lot of the links are wiki links
   which need to be converted into hyperlinks, etc

   <Jodi> There should be general converters from MediaWiki to HTML
   which could give a start... then hand-finish.

   Antoine: We'll need to check these to figure out where things go
   (final report vs. separate deliverable) as well.
   ... Let's move back to getting feedback?
   ... The first area for suggestions is about the graphs. We think we
   can do some interesting stuff. Suggestions?
   ... Tom and Jodi already started a discussion about the possible
   links and their meaning. There are several approaches to make links
   and represent them.


     [39] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LLD-MetadataElementSetCloudMock.png

   Antoine: The second area for feedback is the description grain. Are
   these descriptions sufficient?

   TomB: Somebody on last week's call--William?--talked about using
   visigraph. Is that related to this cloudgraph?

   Antoine: William and his colleagues are using this JavaScript

   TomB: So there are tools for doing this.

   Antoine: Given William's contribution for the CKAN LLD cloud, the
   technical aspects should be straightforward.

   <ww> using protovis

   Antoine: We have two other important questions (beyond the two
   ... First, are there things you think are crucial that should be

   <Uldis> tools for converting MediaWiki pages into other formats:

     [40] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers

   <ww> what i want to do, and should shortly have enough information
   to, is (1) make links explicit within that big circle, (2) have
   non-lld datasets that are linked to be outside the big circle, and
   linked... if that meks sense

   <ww> it'll take a bit of protovis fiddling obviously

   Antoine: Finally, we want feedback on categorization. We're
   considering reorganizing by topic/coverage. We would like group
   feedback on this.

   <marcia> *Antoine: thanks!

   TomB: One way of getting input from the community would be to post
   to public-lld to ask about the coverage. e.g. Are there reference
   vocabularies that are missing? To get more people to look at it.

   <jeff_> Thanks Antoine

   TomB: Any more discussion on the available data section?

   <marcia> *ww: Do you mean the open source software at:
   [41]http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/? thanks.

     [41] http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/?

   TomB: Is there already a wiki page for the section that will go into
   the final report? If not, should we create one?


     [42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0015.html

   TomB: It looks like it will have a few pointers, a few
   representative datasets, and a summary of the longer deliverable. Is
   that right?

   <TomB> ww, thank you for the explanation!

   Antoine: There's no wiki page yet. The listserv message talks about
   this a little
   ... Identifying gaps will be important, we can link with issues or
   recommendations to make sure that the gaps are listed there, or make
   a separate section of issues/recommendations, but this depends on
   other sections and on their separate deliverables.

   <ww> marcia: yes

   Antoine: It will be way easier to create this once we have a
   visualization of the datasets and how they are related, and a
   categorization of the value vocabularies.

   <ww> same as what the mondeca folks and edsu use for these sorts of

   <marcia> ww: thank you!

   <TomB> +1 having a nice graph will really help!

   Antoine: For FRBR, for instance, there are 4-5 ontologies available

   <Jodi> -- so not just gaps but *choices* need to be taken into

   TomB: So you envision directly plugging some of these issues into
   the other issues document?
   ... These documents are editable by everyone in the group, so that
   would be one way to do that
   ... Thank you, Antoine, I think having a graphic will really help in
   presenting that material.


   TomB: What is the idea of the "relevant technologies" section? To
   have something high-level, with simple typology of tools, and
   pointers to maintained lists. And of course a disclaimer that "this
   is not exhaustive"--it will go out of date. Is that right?
   ... Do you envision this as a separate deliverable?

   Jeff: I can envision a paragraph that does this.
   ... I can draft something about this this afternoon.
   ... Not yet clear whether we point to maintained lists or create a
   separate section

   TomB: I would envision doing that as a wiki page, even if it's a
   paragraph or two, then we can put it in as a section of the report

   Jeff: ok, "RelevantTechnology"

   <scribe> ACTION: Jeff to create a wiki page on "RelevantTechnology"
   and link it to the report outline [recorded in

   TomB: See also the Tool category of the wiki:

     [44] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Tool


   TomB: There is an action on Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP to
   elaborate on a general purpose IT architecture. What is the status
   of that?

   Jeff: This was in the back of my mind when I was creating the tools
   ... The 'relevant technologies' is sort of a disclaimer that there
   *is* no coherent architecture, other than the Web standards.

   TomB: Could the points you want to make here be folded into the
   Relevant Technologies section?

   Jeff: exactly!

   <scribe> ACTION: Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP elaborate on general
   purpose IT architecture for dealing with linked data with caching
   feature (short sketch for final report) [recorded in
   tes.html#action04] -- continues

     [45] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html#action04

   TomB: This will be an aspect of RelevantTechnologies


   TomB: Kevin and Joachim have written a note on potential LLD Web

     [46] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD


   Joachim: Had a dentist operation.
   ... Let's do this next time.


   TomB: Daniel is working on the Use Case report, it's coming along


   TomB: I moved around the structure of the draft report.
   ... We're in wind-up stage, and we're running out of time for
   ... I gathered up the raw material, moved them to the end of the
   report, to see more clearly what parts were actively being worked
   ... Are there any links in here which are being actively worked on?
   (from the Community building, outreach, related activities and
   resources section)
   ... Or can we park these links?
   ... I created a section of the wiki "Intermediate Deliverables" and
   listed a lot of these documents there so that they don't get lost,
   but so that they're not actually on our active agenda.

   <antoine> Seems alright...

   <Jodi> need to look at these, but seems reasonable from a first


   <Asaf> Do we have any "review readers" or "advance copies" thing
   going on?

   TomB: We don't have review readers now, but next week or the week
   after we will start assigning reviewers to various sections. It
   feels to me like the individual groups still need a little more time
   to polish their sections.

   <Asaf> sure, that sounds good.

   TomB: I think it would be a little premature to start sending them
   out for review.

   <digikim_> thanks

   TomB: I take silence as rough consent that I haven't made any
   blunders in putting these links at the end of the agenda. Look
   forward to talking to you all next week!

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: Jeff to create a wiki page on "RelevantTechnology" and
   link it to the report outline [recorded in

   [PENDING] ACTION: Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP elaborate on general
   purpose IT architecture for dealing with linked data with caching
   feature (short sketch for final report) [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Cluster owners to check the bullet-point list in
   reflects their understanding and covers relevant points [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the
   report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: edsu, emma, rsinger to create narrative text and
   add to bullet-points [recorded in

     [48] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html#action04
     [49] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
     [50] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action04
     [51] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06
     [52] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action05

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [53]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([54]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/04/19 13:23:18 $

     [53] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 14:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:57 UTC