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

Agenda - Feb 17 2011 - LLD XG telecon - 1000 EDT

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:30:54 -0500
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110216183054.GA10588@octavius>
Agenda - Feb 17 2011 - LLD XG telecon - 1000 EDT

Source: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/RunningAgenda

Time - http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Telecons#Connection_info
     0700 Seattle - 1000 New York - 1500 London - 1600 Paris - 2300 Kuala Lumpur
     0000 Tokyo - 0200 Sydney (next day)

W3C Library Linked Data Incubator group:
      http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/               - home page
      http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/          - wiki
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/  - group list
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/     - community list

LLD XG telecons:
      Attendance is restricted to registered XG participants and
          persons invited by chairs.

Chair: Tom
Scribe: Uldis?
      http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/Scribing.html (how to)

Regrets: Emmanuelle, Monica, Gordon

LOD-LAM Summit: http://lod-lam.net/ - Guest: Jon Voss

ACTION: Tom B to invite Jon Voss for a future telcon, to present http://lod-lam.net/summit/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action01]

Goals of summit as per http://lod-lam.net/summit/about/:
-- Identify the tools and techniques for publishing and working with 
   Linked Open Data.
-- Draft precedents and policy for licensing and copyright considerations 
   regarding the publishing of library, archive, and museum metadata.
-- Publish definitions and promote use cases that will give LAM staff 
   the tools they need to advocate for Linked Open Data in their institutions.

-- Minutes of previous telecon 
   PROPOSED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html

-- Telecons - http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Telecons
     Upcoming next telecons, with scheduled chairs and regrets received:
         2011-02-24 Antoine, scribe Lars, Monica
         2011-03-03 Emmanuelle, scribe Monica
         2011-03-10 Tom
         2011-03-17 Antoine

-- Dedicated Asia-Pacific time zone telecon - to be scheduled


ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03]

ACTION: GordonD and Karen to curate collection cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/06-lld-minutes.html#action11]

ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing clusters to see where the web service dimension could be strengthened. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13]


ACTION: Antoine, Emma, TomB to send a call for reviewers to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action14]

ACTION: Jodi to replace placeholders in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport with transclusion code [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action04]
-- done: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion

-- as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html

1) What to do with the use cases themselves.  In the cluster
   texts, summaries of case-study "scenarios" are an
   important intermediate step between the raw use cases
   and the "extracted use cases" (synthetic summaries).
   Should these intermediate analyses find their way into
   the final report?  For example, should there be a section
   in the appendix with a one-sentence summary of each use
   case, with links both to the original source and to the
   (to-be-frozen) use-case description in the wiki, followed
   by bullet points extracted from the cluster analyses?

2) How to characterize the "datasets".  According the current
   outline, datasets are supposed to be handled in sub-section
   1.4.2. of the section "available data".  The reviewer
   for this section should propose a short text describing
   CKAN and its processes.  Should we bother trying to list
   datasets in the Appendix, knowing that the list will already
   be obsolete at the time of publication?  The answer to
   this question should perhaps depend on what we do with
   the use-case summaries (review #1).

3) How to charaterize the "vocabularies".  As in #2,
   vocabularies are currently penciled in as section
   1.4.1. under "available data".  The use-case clusters list
   vocabularies used.  Should these lists be consolidated into
   one long, annotated list?  And should that list be included
   in the body of the report or relegated to an appendix
   and summarized in the body of the report?  What sorts of
   observations or conclusions about vocabularies derived
   from the cluster analyses would be appropriate to include
   in the body of the report?

4) Where to fit Gordon's analysis of library standards
   (starting at [3]).  Should the discussion and update on
   ISBD, FR, RDA, AACR, MARC, etc be summarized in the body
   of the report, and if so, where?  It would seem to belong
   in the section describing available vocabularies and data
   sources, but in that case, should the section be called
   "available data" or something more inclusive, such as
   "the Ingredients of Library Linked Data" (I hesitate to
   call them "elements" :-)?  Would the introduction to
   this section be the place to include our hard-won and
   useful pragmatic distinctions between Element Sets, Value
   Vocabularies, and Datasets?  Or are these discussions of
   recent developments too detailed for the body of the report
   and best handled in an appendix?

5) Getting a start on Problems and Limitations (section 1.5).
   This reviewer should read the use-case clusters
   from the perspective of problems and limitations and
   propose how to merge the scattered observations into a
   coherent section.  One very important wiki page overlooked
   in the current transcluded draft is Gordon's analysis
   Library_standards_and_linked_data [4].

6) How to handle "relevant technologies".  Use-case cluster
   analyses list them.  Do we want to present a consolidated
   list?  In the body of the report or in an appendix?
   What would be the point of a section specifically about
   relevant technologies; do we need one?  How would it relate
   to the section on Problems and Limitations?

7) Extracting the "benefits".  The reviewer should read through
   the entire draft and synthesize a first-draft high-level
   list of benefits from using a Linked Data approach.

8) Curating the Appendix.  It is clear that alot of the detail
   should be relegated to an Appendix.  Someone should take
   ownership of the Appendix, creating [5] and devising for it
   a structure, such as:
   -- List of annotated use cases.
   -- List of annotated vocabularies
   -- List of annotated technologies used (if so concluded 
      on the basis of review #6).
   -- List of use cases, briefly described and characterized,
      or a longer list of datasets based on CKAN.
   We may decide that individual sections of the appendix need
   separate curators; the job of the Appendix curator will 
   simply be to get this section outlined and started.


Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 18:31:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:56 UTC