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

Telecon minutes, 10 March 2011

From: Ford, Kevin <kefo@loc.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:06:11 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1D525027B29706438707F336D75A279F168305A1C5@LCXCLMB03.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
The minutes from last Thursday's telecon are available at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/10-lld-minutes.html

I've also pasted a text version below.

Cheers,

Kevin


----------------


   [1]W3C

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

                                LLD XG

10 Mar 2011

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0039.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/10-lld-irc

Attendees

   Present
          antoine, TomB, emma, jeff__, GordonD, kefo, michaelp, marcia,
          rsinger, ww, kcoyle, pmurray, LarsG

   Regrets
          kai, joachim, jodi, uldis, kim, felix, lars, ray

   Chair
          Tom

   Scribe
          kefo

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]Final report draft
         3. [7]Use case and requirements
         4. [8]PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS / ISSUES - SECTION IN REPORT
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <antoine> Previous: 2011-03-03 -
   [10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0033.h
   tml

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0033.html

   <TomB> Scribe: kefo

   <TomB> Scribenick: kefo

Admin

   TomB: proposes accepting mtg minutes

   <ww> +1

   [ I missed a lot of that - noise in the room on my end ]

   <ww> an hour earlier is actually better for me :)

   <emma> I won't chair on march 24th, Antoine will

   TomB: Emma won't chair on 24 march, Antoine will
   ... moving on to Asia-Pacific telecon.
   ... It's late for many, but we're happy to accommodate Asia-Pacific
   participants and thanks to those joining from the US and Europe
   ... Can we identify a scribe for the Asia-Pacific telecon?
   ... Also, goals for the telecon: we should walk through main agenda
   points and explain what's going on, how the process is going,
   encourage participation from them (especially in reviewing sections
   of the report), and let's leave time to hear from participants who
   might have something to present or emphasize (topics important to
   them).
   ... Will be a informal call.
   ... Do others have suggestions or comments on this plan?

   <antoine> sounds good!

   TomB: I'll try to confirm moving the call an hour earlier.

Final report draft

   TomB: About the executive summary.
   ... Benefits: Emmanuelle and Ed are working on benefits. Would
   either like to comment?

   Emma: I've personally not started yet.

Use case and requirements

   <scribe> Use cases and requirements (represented via clusters, plus
   an annotated list of use cases, plus requirement list?)

   <TomB>
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0038.h
   tml

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0038.html

   ACTION: emma, TomB, and antoine to send a call for finding an owner
   of the UC deliverable [recorded in
   http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.
   html#action07] [DONE]

   TomB: We'll have a separate report on use cases. Not too long, but
   enough.
   ... Would anyone like to edit this section of the report?
   ... You do get to place your name on separate sections (as
   "editor"), which may be attractive if anyone needs to demonstrate
   impact of participating in this group/

   kcoyle: Do we really need separate documents (one for the Use
   Cases)?
   ... The clusters have been distilled. Perhaps we just need a wiki
   page to point to. I feel we've done this already.

   <emma> a report makes it more official for dissemination ?

   TomB: I think we have to. I'd like to formalize it a little. It does
   not need to be complicated.

   kcoyle: I don't see it as a "document" but a "wiki" page because I'd
   want it linked.

   TomB: I see. No a wiki page is fine. It does not need to be offline.

   <marcia> Antoine: What did the SKOS do for the usecases?

   Antoine: I'd like to comment, also, Marcia asked a question about UC
   in SKOS.
   ... We took some of the Use cases in SKOS and that document linked
   to other wiki pages. So it was a mix between placing some content in
   a document and placing some in a wiki.

   <TomB> Example of archived wiki page:
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables

   Antoine: Regardin Karen's suggestion: A wiki can be edited, making
   it dynamic, and the W3C cannot archive a Wiki in quite the same way
   as a "document." They're are labelled as "archived" and no longer
   actively maintained.

   TomB: Here is an example of a frozen wiki page:
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables
   ... Not going to resolve this unless we have volunteer.

     [13] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/Deliverables

   <scribe> ACTION: ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses
   cluster [CONTINUES] [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/10-lld-minutes.html#action03]

     [14] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/10-lld-minutes.html#action03

   <emma> Kefo : sent an email to the list that completes the action

   <antoine>
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0092.html

     [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0092.html

   <TomB>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD

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

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

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13

   <scribe> Available data section (vocabularies, datasets) (Antoine
   and Jeff) -- CONTINUES

   TomB: We need to start closing some of these open actions.

   <emma> +1 for closing the action

   <antoine> +1

   <antoine> ACTION: Volunteers to send login information (openid
   credentials) to William Waite to curate LLD group on CKAN [recorded
   in [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action04]
   [DONE]

     [18] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action04

   TomB: Main point of call. Gordon's analysis.

PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS / ISSUES - SECTION IN REPORT

   GordonD: Let's concentrate on sections 1 and 3. Section 2
   (granularity) can probably be incporated into problems and
   limitations.

   <antoine>
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
   linked_data

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

   GordonD: We'll begin with section 1: Issues for further discussion,
   ... the benefits of "Constrained versus unconstrained properties and
   classes."
   ... There's been recent disucssion about this on the list.

   <GordonD>
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0055.html

     [20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0055.html

   GordonD: Tom summarized the discussion nicely.
   ... If we replace direct references to FRBR to something more
   generic like "library standards" we can get something out of this
   page.
   ... Are there any comments on the pros and cons of "Constrained
   versus unconstrained properties and classes"?

   TomB: Are you saying that both are needed? That if you do not have
   "constrained" properties you will lose information?

   GordonD: Yes, that is what I'm saying.

   TomB: The value of constrained properties allows for inferencing of
   more knowledge.

   <Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest getting inspiration from DC

   GordonD: Yes. I take the point of unrestrained properties, and I've
   worked to find a middle ground with some groups.

   Emma: I think we can look at DC, where the elements were
   unconstrained versus later definitions where some ranges are
   applied.
   ... Some use DC elements namespace properties because they are
   unconstrained, others use the constrained terms. But, still, many do
   not recognize the distinction.

   GordonD: I agree. People want and require guidance on this. How does
   someone choose a set of classes and properties from namespaces? It
   might be obvious to us, but not others.
   ... I see a more general guidance piece coming out of this that
   addresses the mixing and matching and the choices implementers have.

   kcoyle: I'm going to question this. I see a far amount of guidance
   in the unconstrained properties. Take, for example, Work Title. Must
   that be constrained to FRBR Entity - it already has a clear meaning?
   It is defined independently.

   <emma> +1, Karen : guidance & data constraints are 2 different
   things

   kcoyle: Some analysis should be done. Some *need* to be constrained
   to have meaning. But others do not.

   <antoine> +1

   <michaelp> +1

   <rsinger> +1

   kcoyle: I see constraints as overkill.

   GordonD: I disagree. What will happen: people will look at the
   documentation and they will choose a property based on the
   definition and not its context.

   kcoyle: That argues for entity constraints on everything in the sem
   web.

   GordonD: Library data is particularly semantically rich.

   kcoyle: I don't know if it is that much different than other data.
   ... I don't see the problem, the need to constrain.

   jeff_: I tend to agree with GordonD. The constraints help to tell me
   what they mean (not just how to use them).

   <kcoyle> or subclassed to rda without constraints, as in the
   registry

   jeff_: They provide a level of confidence in interoperability. You
   can find a middle ground by constraining the FRBR ontology but
   sub-classing FRBR classes/properties to DC, for example.

   GordonD: Yes. That is the middle ground.
   ... Use contrained versions where possibe and suitable to protect
   against data loss, but unconstrained when it matters less.

   Antoine: I feel a little uncomfortable with constrained as well.
   ... We should be careful about the granularity of the semantics we
   want with these constraints.

   <jeff__> I agree with Antoine on the point of overconstraint

   <kcoyle> Here is a place to see RDA properties by entity:
   [21]http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1propsby.html

     [21] http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1propsby.html

   Antoine: A benefit of constraints is that I can *infer* knowledge.
   But, this can also be remedied by expressing facts more explicitly.

   <rsinger> +1

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that SKOS has both constrained
   and unconstrained properties. The question is: which properties need
   to be constrained? Hopefully no more than

   Antoine: Finally, I would like to submit a practical addition to
   argument against constraints: you are adding many elements to your
   namespace.

   TomB: When defining SKOS we wanted to keep it as simple as possible.
   So, some properties have domains, but others do not. Labelling
   properties are not restricted only to Concepts. You can use a
   "preferred label" for anything you want to use it for.
   ... We were cautious about restricting domains and ranges in order
   to facilitate adoption and use.
   ... If you mechanically replicate properties and classes for
   *everything* it can lead to a proliferation of classees and
   properties. Perhaps the constraints should only be used prudently
   and carefully.

   michaelp: My comments follow along the lines of Antoine's and Tom's.
   ... Constraints tend to be used to specify semantically what we
   mean. We should be careful about what constraints here mean. In OWL,
   constraints can negatively impact interoperability because of
   inconsistency.
   ... OWL makes assumptions about the entities based on the
   properties. It's not *meaning* but "inferencing." It's also not
   validation.

   <rsinger> i completely agree with this

   <TomB> Michael: we should be careful about what constraints mean.
   OWL enforces constraints as "inconsistency". Use of X property
   forces something to considered a "work" (for example). It's not
   validation, it's inference, so be careful. Much of the constraints
   should happen on the side of the classes, not with proliferation of
   properties.

   <LarsG> +1 for what michaelp said

   <emma> +1, michaelp

   jeff_: I appreciate constraints when they make sense.

   <ww> validation vs. inference -- validation means applying inference
   rules to exhaustion and not entailing a contradiction (modulo
   cardinality and such which didn't work well)

   karen: I want to clarify a couple of things. There are alot of
   levels between fully constrained and completely unconstrained RDA
   models.
   ... We should consider that *some* properties/classes require
   constraints. Therefore, not an all or nothing view.
   ... People are concerned about the constraints on WEMI Group 1, but
   less so Group 2 & 3.
   ... We should consider constraints applied to application profiles.

   GordonD: Communities have invested huge effort into these models.
   They're well-defined and structured. I'm a little surprised. I would
   have expected such rich models to be more welcomed than thay appear
   to have been.
   ... We're trying to get general points out of this discussion. The
   details about the constraints on WEMI, for example, are us talking
   about the trees and missing the forest.

   <Zakim> antoine, you wanted to discuss proposing a modelling
   exercise

   Antoine: Agree with Gordon. We could be talking about any model, not
   just a FRBR one.
   ... Could we continue this discussion by a type of modeling
   exercise? Taking the name and consider its modeling with properties
   versus classes.

   <kcoyle> i would like to see properties v. classes modeled

   GordonD: I think this is a good proposal.

   <rsinger> maybe in an 88 post email thread ;)

   <antoine> :-D

   <kcoyle> :-)

   TomB: Gordon, bring us home...

   GordonD: Application profiles, OWL ontologies.

   <LarsG> perhaps we could just have it as an open issue in the final
   report...

   GordonD: Which might be better?

   <kcoyle> is this a matter for our report, or a question we want to
   incubate?

   GordonD: Perhaps it would be best to outline the pros and cons of
   each, which would touch on the constrained versus unconstrained
   issue.
   ... There's little agreement about the *best* approach, but we could
   provide guidance by outlining the options.

   <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to scope what LLD XG can say and what we
   can identify as a problem

   <kcoyle> +1

   TomB: I think it's great if we can make some progress on this topic
   by looking at examples, but it might be unrealistic to provide
   solutions versus identifying the problem. We need to be realistic
   about what we can do, especially in the time reamining.

   GordonD: Quickly to section 3, linked data and legacy records
   ... In many ways this is the flip side of what we were just talking
   about. Libraries are sitting on mounds of data. Many are beginning
   to see how opening this up would be beneficial.
   ... We've had a number of discussions about this and I think we can
   bring some of these issues in.
   ... Do others have something to say?

   kcoyle: I think legacy data and the constraint issue come together.
   Hard to move data into a constrained model.

   GordonD: I actually see the existence of constrained properties
   assisting with providing additional value to legacy data.
   ... for example, one could output standard MARC records to ISBD, as
   an initial step, and then, using property/class relationships, move
   to other namespaces, finally ending on a more FRBR model. But I'm
   just thinking aloud.

   <kcoyle> and remember that there is a lot of non-library
   bibliographic data

   rsinger: Not seeing how we will bridge the gap between current
   models/formats and future ones.

   GordonD: We do the best we can. History has a way of working these
   things out.

   <rsinger> fair enough

   <antoine> ++ for optimistic observation as closing remark :-)

   TomB: We need to adjourn. I look forward to talking to others
   tomorrow to talk about problems and issues.

   <LarsG> bye

   <ww> thanks !

   TomB: Mtg adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [PENDING] ACTION: emma and ed to start curating a section on
   benefits of LLD for libraries [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
   tes.html#action06]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/03/10-lld-minutes.html#action03]

     [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action06
     [23] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/10-lld-minutes.html#action03

   [DONE] ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing
   clusters to see where the web service dimension could be
   strengthened. [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minu
   tes.html#action13]
   [DONE] ACTION: Volunteers to send login information (openid
   credentials) to William Waite to curate LLD group on CKAN [recorded
   in [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action04]

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13
     [25] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action04

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.135
    ([27]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/03/11 09:08:59 $

     [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 16:07:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 March 2011 16:07:39 GMT