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

Minutes of 2011-03-03 LLD meeting

From: Monica Duke <m.duke@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:23:30 +0000
Message-Id: <1F1034D3-ACE8-4CA1-9B8F-993BA6AADA22@ukoln.ac.uk>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi everyone,

The minutes for the call on 3rd March are at

A text version follows.

With apologies for lateness due to a couple mistakes I made in the process of getting these ready.  Many thanks to Antoine and Emma for support.  I've spotted a couple of typos which I can asked to be fixed.  TomB there is an instance where I did not make out what you said and I put ?? 




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

                                LLD XG

03 Mar 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0007.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/03-lld-irc


          mduke, antoine, kcoyle, TomB?, rsinger, emma, jeff__,
          GordonD, marcia, michaelp, edsu, uldis, AlexanderH, jar_,
          pmurray, rayd, kefo, jodi, ww_

          Felixi, Lars




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Minutes
         2. [6]Telcon For Particpants in Asia-Pacific
         3. [7]Final Report Draft
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

   <TomB> Previous:

      [9] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html

   <scribe> Scribe: monica

   <TomB> Scribenick: monica

   <emma> sorry for being late

   <ww_> RRSAgent: present: ww_


   PROPOSED: To accept

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html


   emma: only 10 telcons left agenda now lists all the telcons with
   chair and a proposed topic for each telcon
   ... would like to discuss this proposed schedule
   ... first introducing telcon for Asia participants - invites TomB to

Telcon for Particpants in Asia-Pacific

   TomB: Monday or Tuesday depending on location
   ... 10 people expected no agenda topics suggested so far

   <emma> TomB: looking for agenda ideas

   <emma> ... other wise informal discussion

   <emma> ... we don't have a scribe yet, late for the US

   <marcia> Can we have two scribers -- we are not familiar with the
   coming participants and not sure whether will be able to understand

   <emma> ... could be difficult to understand

   emma: suggests during the meeting we should discuss the content of
   the report

   <antoine> +1

   TomB: agrees

   <uldis> marcia: re two scribes -- perhaps one of them from
   Asia-Pacific region/timezone

Final Report Draft

   emma: agenda proposes contents of report discussed in the upcoming
   ... someone to lead the discussion of the contents (each section)
   ... assuming we agree on contents
   ... we need to check we have owners for each section of the report
   ... owner could be doing aggregation or summarising
   ... some people are more comfortable with writing than others
   ... we need to have text in each section

   emma: we can now review the list of telcons alongside the outline of
   report contents

   <kcoyle> emma - plan sounds good

   emma: any comments?


     [11] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportReviewerAssignments

   emma: I am trying to clarify what we are asking owners to do - could
   be writing or other tasks

   <marcia> uldis: Not sure who will be there... looks like only 2-3
   and maybe they need to speak.

   <antoine> +1

   <GordonD> +1

   emma: according to schedule, next week's discussion will be data
   issues led by Gordon

   scribe: then will be discussion on problems and limitations, 2
   telcons, led by karen

   karen: agrees two telcons is a good idea

   <GordonD> +1 for 2 slots for problems and limitations

   emma: On 2011-03-31 discussion would be on LLD Benefits, owned by Ed
   and Emma

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to confirm that Gordon for "library data
   issues" next week means
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_BibData ...?

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_BibData

   <antoine> no it is

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data

   emma: 2011-04-27 discussion on use cases

   TomB: ??

   edsu: agrees on date

   emma: invites others to join in benefits of LLD section

   <rsinger> i'll join

   <edsu> rsinger++

   emma: 2011-04-07 UC report discussion
   ... previous discussion said there was too much to go in the report
   from the clusters
   ... any volunteers for the job of aggregating use case clusters
   ... ?
   ... no volunteers yet

   <scribe> ACTION: emma and ed to start curating a section on benefits
   of LLD for libraries [recorded in

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action06

   <emma> ACTION: emma, TomB, and antoine to send a call for finding an
   owner of the UC deliverable [recorded in
   tes.html#action07] [CONTINUES]

     [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action07

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that
   linked_data is not linked to

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data

   TomB: do we need to decide what to do with the contents of that

   Gordon: I thought what we agreed was that page would feed into
   problems and limitations
   ... I would tease out limitations to feed into karen's work

   karen: we need to think about a question as we go through this - who
   is our audience?
   ... what motivated Gordon to write this was a need to educate some
   audiences about realities in the library environment that they may
   not be aware of
   ... there is not much of this in problems and limitations, we need
   to decide how much background we give, which depends on who the
   audience is
   ... librarians already understand some issues, others outside
   library will not be aware of them

   marcia: it would be useful to decide who the audience is
   ... the title of the group is library data, much thinking on big

   <jar_> "long tail" also important, yes

   marcia: principles of open bibliographic data is helpful

   <rsinger> +1

   karen: I think we have not yet defined what we mean by library data
   ... I have a short definition I can share - people may not agree

   <antoine> cf use cases for "library data"

   marcia: ??

   emma: yes we need to think about scope of report
   ... 2011-04-14 discussion on available data and vocabulary - antoine
   and jeff leading


     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0006.html

   <digikim_> sorry, seems like I can't join the phone conference (due
   to being busy with other things currently) :-/

   antoine: it is not about gathering vocabulary and datasets yet
   ... we tried to take into account what was said in the last call
   ... we wanted to say something about representative datasets
   ... use cases provide pointers to vocabs/datasets

   <marcia> monica: what I was speaking was about non-academic and
   national libraries. There are many informaiton centers, vertual
   libraries, digital collections that are not from those MARC or ISBD
   based. They produce more open bibliographic data.

   antoine: people from other domains may be asking questions about the
   LOD - the cloud does not say everything
   ... especially how people can contribute who are not from libraries

   <marcia> Monica: the example I used is the National Science Digital
   Library, which has very rich resource. The contributors are mostly
   not from the traditional, physical libraries.

   <jar_> +1. important to articulate the value proposition of LD (for

   antoine: next we made reference to that LOD cloud
   ... starting from the use cases we are gathering the data sets
   connected to the UCs
   ... next point in the section will be to identify gaps also starting
   from UCs

   <edsu> jar_: someone = cultural heritage institutions: libraries,
   archives, museums, etc

   <TomB> +1 sounds good

   antoine: present as work in progress, tell people what they might
   expect in future

   <jar_> edsu: yes.

   antoine: this could lead to recommendations
   ...summary: aim of section, identify datasets, identify gaps,
   issues, work in progress
   ... what we have gathered will be presented as snapshot
   ... second part will be focused on CKAN LLD group to continue the
   ... this section is flexible
   ... we are suggesting that one of us liaise with R Cygniak
   ... ask what they need from LLD

   <scribe> ACTION: Antoine and jeff_ to make a proposal to the group
   about vocabularies and datasets [recorded in
   tes.html#action08] [DONE]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action08

   antoine:we will need people to help us we welcome input on these
   sections - any of the sections or the separate deliverable last
   week's telcon - people who made comments then are welcome to comment
   but open to anyone to help with these sections

   <rsinger> i am

   <marcia> I am in

   <scribe> --continues

   <edsu> ww_: we are talking about you :-)

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that the snapshot be very
   "broad-brush" (i.e., not take much writing effort away from sections
   in the main report) because whatever list is presented in

   TomB: we need to keep an eye on the report

   <ww_> edsu: ack

   TomB: it will be interesting for people reading the report to get a
   sense of what is out there, but as a resource it would get out of

   antoine: links to authority files, subject headings

   jeff: a snapshot helps becuase it gives you the idea that there is
   alot more going on and things are changing

   emma: last 10 minutes

   <rsinger> a snapshot also gives a reference to build on

   emma: 2011-04-21 discussion would be requirements and

   <rsinger> re: future snapshots

   <antoine> @rsinger: yes!

   <kcoyle> won't issues lead to that?

   emma: no content yet we need to get a sense of what we would expect
   in this section
   ... do we have specific expectations on this?

   <jar_> You can't have requirements unless you've articulated what
   goal you're trying to reach. "X is required in order for ..."

   karen: we can't do requiqrements until we have done issues
   ... the issues discussions will lead to how we approach requirements

   emma: we need to have something in mind, there are some placeholders
   ... when working on other sections

   <GordonD> +1 to have indications of requirements from the work on
   the problems and limitations section

   <GordonD> +1 to separate requirements from recommendations

   emma: we should think about requirements, recommendations and what
   we would like to see happening

   <GordonD> Issues lead to requirements lead to recommendations

   karen: requirements and recommendations are different things but we
   need to have thought about the issues
   ... example recommendation would be to create another group

   antoine: was going to make similar points, some recommendations are
   not requirements-related
   ... in COlogne Guenther Neher had volunteered to write something
   about curricula
   ... maybe we can contact him

   emma: agrees, outreach-related work questions needs discussion
   ... may need to be addressed in a May call
   ... we need to check all sections have been discussed once
   ... in May we will check that we have done so

   <GordonD> This is a good schedule!

   emma: that leaves a few months

   <kcoyle> it's good to HAVE a schedule to try to achieve

   emma: there are 4 topics without owners


     [19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html

   emma: do we keep in use case report, in appendix, as something else?
   ... relevant technologies are important, people ask 'are there

   karen: tools will end up on the issues page - everyone wants to know
   what are the tools we can use today, the lack of those tools will be
   one of the issues

   jeff: tools available - we can provide pointers to the ones
   available, maybe short descriptions

   <GordonD> Relevant technologies are also volatile (like
   vocabularies/datasets) so suggest a similar treatment

   <kcoyle> jeff, can you make that list?

   <kcoyle> also, differ between tools for develoeprs and tools for

   <TomB> jeff, that would be extremely valuable

   <marcia> Karen: FYI: The open ontology group's identified audiences
   for the messages we need to deliver: (i) policy makers, (ii) budget
   holders, (iii) Technology Decision Makers (CIOs and Architects),
   (iv) Implementers (engineers and developers), (v) users/consumers of
   the technology, and (vi) educators

   <michaelp> I was in there, too.

   emma: there was a pending action


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

   AlexanderH: agrees this is important, but it is difficult to give
   recommendations for the far future

   <marcia> Karen: That list might be a different detail level from
   what you were talking about the 'audiences'.

   <jodi> marcia: good list of audiences

   <kcoyle> marcia: i like that list, will think about

   <rsinger> me too

   antoine: we could provide pointers, recommendation for the next
   future would be useful for community

   <TomB> Any tools list will go out of date quickly but a list
   characterizing what is available in a broad-brush way would be

   <kcoyle> thanks!

   emma: thanks everyone

   <AlexanderH> htank u

   <kefo> bye

Summary of Action Items

   [DONE] ACTION: Antoine and jeff_ to make a proposal to the group
   about vocabularies and datasets [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: emma, TomB, and antoine to send a call for finding
   an owner of the UC deliverable [recorded in
   [PENDING] ACTION: emma and ed to start curating a section on
   benefits of LLD for libraries [recorded in

     [21] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action08
     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action07
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action06

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [24]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([25]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/03/08 21:44:55 $

     [24] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 08:24:03 UTC

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