- From: Peter Murray <peter.murray@lyrasis.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:29:04 -0500
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
The minutes from today's call are at:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html
The text version is appended below.
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
LLD XG
27 Jan 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0144.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/27-lld-irc
Attendees
Present
TomB, antoine, emma, markva, pmurray, rsinger, Asaf, uldis,
GordonD, marcia, michaelp, jneubert, edsu, felix, kcoyle,
kefo
Regrets
Kim, Jeff, Guenther, Alexander, Lars, Kai, Jodi, William, Ray
Chair
Tom
Scribe
pmurray
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]Final Report Draft
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<antoine> Previous:
[8]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/20-lld-minut
es.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/20-lld-minutes.html
Admin
RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes (after clean up) at
[9]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/20-lld-minut
es.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/20-lld-minutes.html
Final Report Draft
<TomB>
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0148.h
tml
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0148.html
TomB: Posted a message to the list with a draft outline of the final
report.
... propose that we go through the draft as listed in the e-mail.
... walk through the outline of the final report to see how the
pieces of the wiki documents fit into the outline
... for all of the documents ask if the document has served its
purpose -- should it be dropped, integrated into the draft report,
used as a separate deliverable, or kept as is.
... when we decide something should be integrated into the draft, if
we have sections of text that are done, that we should move them
into the draft report
... we can discuss if that is the best way to do it as the report
gets longer.
... when we start to put things into the final report that we assign
people to review different sections.
... until now we have had curators present their work. it would be
helpful to read each others sections to bring in new perspectives
and reviewing from different standpoints.
... hopefully we will all be familiar with the contents of the
report in the end.
... suggest that we start with the e-mail at
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0148.h
tml
... use clusters as the basis of the "state of the art" section
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0148.html
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest to review the main sections of
the draft report
emma: Suggest that we start reviewing the main sections of the
report to make sure we agree with them
TomB: Suggests focusing on what we have and then come back to the
outline to see what needs to be put in.
... seeking updates on the clusters.
emma: Archives cluster: Nothing further on the Archives cluster.
Work is almost done.
... keeping the action open to remember to review it one last time.
GordonD: Bibliographic cluster: is finished. Minor adjustments due
to the late use cases.
edsu: Citations cluster: Kai had some ideas for taking it further to
make things better, but unsure how far he intends to go.
GordonD: Collections cluster: done in a week or two.
markva: Digital Objects: still finishing up. Needs help with some of
the use case shepherds for suggesting things.
uldis: Social Uses: deadline is Feb 15th to receive suggested use
cases.
antoine: Vocabulary alignment: still not finished. Most of the work
is editorial. Have decided on a way to distribute the work
yesterday.
... Have something on the middle of next week or the week after
that.
TomB: We have lots of wiki pages that might be integrated into the
final report or delivered as separate documents
... any thoughts on how the vocabularies page might be developed
into a section of the final report?
<markva> which one, two called "vocabulary"
<Asaf> I think a list of Vocabs would not be as useful as specific
recommendations in the context of specific scenarios.
emma: include the defitintions that we have created
... vocabularies section was thought to list the vocabularies that
we find we are using
...
[12]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_ex
plained
... list of vocabularies included in the use cases is a long list
[12] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained
<marcia> or put them in an appendix
emma: use the definitions to say that there are these types and
include examples
<markva> +1 asaf, emma
emma: for the report
TomB: Need a placeholder in the report that points to the
vocabularies page
<GordonD> +1 marcia - put snapshot list of vocabularies in use in an
appendix?
TomB: as we get further along, we need owners for sections so we can
have a crack at making stylistic decisions of when do we have lists,
when do we cut material, do we put lists in appendices, putting text
in the main report
antoine: suggests putting a snapshot of the vocabularies list in the
appendix
TomB: suggests that where we have lists of things that we put effort
into compiling those lists for the report
... if we decide the appendix is not useful, we can cut it
<GordonD> Big question: who are we writing the report for?
Knowledgeable parties? W3C? Librarians who are curious?
<Asaf> Very big question. :)
<emma> @GordonD : for "the community" ?
<marcia> good question
antoine: A bit of a mixture of all of these people.
TomB: Another group is decision-makers in the library world. What
direction to go in, where to invest resources, that sort of thing.
<Asaf> I think the _obvious_ audience is high-level deciders about
library technology. Those vary between orgs.
<GordonD> Decision-makers need the snapshot!
<Asaf> (but also: implementers or would-be implementers of any kind
of library-related LOD project)
antoine: All of this discussion on the audience may point that we
need a short report that is an entry point to other things.
<Asaf> Yes! Concise is good!
<GordonD> +1 for concision
<markva> +1
antoine: what we currently see as the report focus on motivation,
view of vocabularies
<michaelp> Usually, a report would have an "executive summary" or 1
or 2 pages for decision makers.
<markva> Do we need some introduction / reading guide?
<markva> To guide the diff type of readers?
<marcia> +michaelp for executive summary
<markva> +1 michaelp
emma: Start by putting everything in one big draft and see what can
then be extracted elsewhere
<GordonD> One big draft that can be output in different forms for
different audiences is a good idea!
<marcia> +1
<markva> need to identify the diff outputs then, sep wiki pages
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to include executive summary placeholder in
report [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
emma: Continuing where TomB left off, the next entry in the draft
report is the [14]http://ckan.net/group/lld
... TomB suggests in his e-mail summarizing this as section 3.2 of
the report
[14] http://ckan.net/group/lld
edsu: Does anyone know if very many library data sets have been
tagged in CKAN?
emma: Current state has 18 packages.
antoine: Tagged 10 of them himself. Need to be mindful of
registering other vocabularies
<edsu> nice :-)
<GordonD> I will recommend to IFLA that the CKAN stuff is kept up to
date for IFLA vocabularies, etc.
<emma> [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
emma: Next page is the page of goals. Not sure we need to keep it in
the report as it was an aid for creating use cases.
markva: Doesn't think the page itself contains much text that would
be useful in the report. It was useful to create coherent text of
the use cases. Maybe could use the ideas someplace in the report,
but no concrete suggestions.
emma: Idea was to have common idea between the clusters to extract
for the use case clusters.
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to discuss an "exec summary" on UCs?
antoine: the page could be a good list of reminders for introducing
the section on use cases. an executive summary style of what linked
data would do in terms of applications.
... one sentence that digested the ideas.
... we could have something in the same spirit to make relationships
and exploit them.
<GordonD> +1 for folding Goals into Exec summary/overview of use
cases
<scribe> ACTION: emma to put the Goals page content at the beginning
of the use case section [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action02]
<kefo> apologies - weather delay
<emma>
[17]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_ex
plained
[17] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained
emma: Next page is library terminology informally explained
... terms that are relevant to library and linked data world.
... include in the final report as a link? Notes that it is on the
community wiki, not the group wiki.
<kcoyle> i think that was for our use
<GordonD> +1 include as link/appendix
kcoyle: Suggests that the purpose was so that we could communicate
among ourselves, and not for the final report.
<antoine> I think there should be a freezed version
emma: Only include the vocabulary part in the final report.
<emma>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
emma: Gordon's review library standards of linked data
<emma>
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_Data_Resources
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_Data_Resources
emma: and this other page. There is overlap between the two.
<kcoyle> this could be an appendix
emma: the page that GordonD created is interesting. At the
face-to-face meeting we talked about including it in the report.
Maybe in the vocabulary section.
... the second page was intended as the internal work of the group.
<markva> overview of library standards really useful for semweb
readers
GordonD: The overlap between the two is only in the first half of
the library standards and linked data page.
... the page is deliberately in two parts. Sections 1-4 should be
conflated with the library data resources page.
... the second half was intended as a stimulous for discussion by
the group, but didn't have that effect.
... it might stimulate further discussion beyond the life of the
final report.
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to comment on splitting the page?
antoine: could we split GordonD's page?
GordonD: No objections to splitting the page. It would be valuble to
integrate the first part.
... would like for this group to have at least one session
discussing the open questions in the second half of the page.
<markva> seems to overlap with Problems and Limitations stuff
<scribe> ACTION: As a future topic for a conference call, discuss
the open questions in the second half of
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action03]
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
<scribe> ACTION: GordonD to split
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data and make recommendations on where to integrate into the
final report [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
<antoine> @markva: yes, there is overlap! Gordon's page elaborates
on some of the limitations.
<emma> [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed
emma: We had the idea to work on this with wiki transclusion
... we probably have some of these topics in the draft report
already
... the summary of the face to face is almost more relevant than
this page
<emma>
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/F2F_Pittsburgh_Outcome
s#Use_cases_.26_Topics_9:00-10:30_.2B_11:00-12:30
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/F2F_Pittsburgh_Outcomes#Use_cases_.26_Topics_9:00-10:30_.2B_11:00-12:30
<markva> @antoine: but see no place in report where prob & lim stuff
should go?
<kcoyle> needs to be in there
<markva> yes
<kcoyle> that's probably what we most want to incubate around
(sorry, lost phone, will just chat)
<markva> +1 need new sec
emma: create a new section in the report on problems and
limitations?
<marcia> +1 some generalized ones
scribe: then we can go further with the recommendations
<kcoyle> should be 1.4; before recommendations
<scribe> ACTION: emma to add a 1.4 section (before recommendations)
on problems and limitations [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action05]
<emma>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Granularity_of_library
_metadata
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Granularity_of_library_metadata
GordonD: page is still under discussion with jodi and kcoyle
... what the page is intending to publish is quite imporant
... where it is heading is towards mixed granularity approach for
libraries, with implications as to whether LLD helps
... perhaps this belongs in the problems/limitation section as a
general environmental issue that might lead to problems/limitations
... suggests continue working on the page to include in this new
problems/limitations section
<kcoyle> +1
GordonD: GordonD will come up with a suggestion on how to integrate
it.
<edsu> +1 seems like a good thing to include in the report
<TomB> +1
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine to include executive summary placeholder in
report [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: As a future topic for a conference call, discuss the
open questions in the second half of
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: emma to add a 1.4 section (before recommendations) on
problems and limitations [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: emma to put the Goals page content at the beginning of
the use case section [recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: GordonD to split
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data and make recommendations on where to integrate into the
final report [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
[33] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perl version 1.135
([36]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/01/27 18:35:50 $
[35] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
--
Peter Murray Peter.Murray@lyrasis.org tel:+1-678-235-2955
Ass't Director, Technology Services Development http://dltj.org/about/
Lyrasis -- Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.
The Disruptive Library Technology Jester http://dltj.org/
Attrib-Noncomm-Share http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 22:29:39 UTC