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

Minutes of 2011-03-17 LLD meeting

From: Peter Murray <peter.murray@lyrasis.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:38:31 -0400
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-ID: <795CA5C9-2B6A-4298-9142-C151583BAAB8@lyrasis.org>
Colleagues --

The minutes of our call earlier today are at:

  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html

...and are appended below.


   [1]W3C

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

                                LLD XG

17 Mar 2011

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0058.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/17-lld-irc

Attendees

   Present
          pmurray, TomB, GordonD, jeff_, kcoyle, marcia, monica,
          rsinger, antoine_, edsu, rayd, uldis

   Regrets
          Lars, Jodi, Kevin, Alexander, Kai, Felix

   Chair
          Antoine

   Scribe
          Peter Murray

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Admin
         2. [6]Asia-Pacific call
         3. [7]Final Report Draft
         4. [8]USE CASE CLUSTERS- ONGOING ACTIONS
         5. [9]PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS / ISSUES - SECTION IN REPORT
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   < antoine> Previous: 2011-03-10
   [11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0055.h
   tml

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

Admin

   RESOLUTION: To accept
   [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/10-lld-minu
   tes.html

     [12] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/10-lld-minutes.html

Asia-Pacific call

   antoine:postponed until better conditions

Final Report Draft

   antoine:Want to review the current sections as envisioned
   ... and the remaining work that needs to be carried out.
   ... Report includes 6 items.
   ... Nothing to say on executive summary.
   ... Next in the report is the "Benefits of LD for libraries"
   ... will have a discussion on this in two weeks.

   emma:Not sure we can commit to this date.

   edsu:Haven't created a wiki page for it. As it is currently framed
   may be asking a lot.
   ... (extracting benefits from clusters and use cases)
   ... a couple of bullet points might be doable in two weeks.

   < TomB> +1 to start with high-level bullet points

   antoine:Thinks it is okay to start with that.

   < emma> yes @ed, +1 for starting with bullet points

   antoine:from a list of bullet points we could have an interesting
   discussion.

   < emma> that may be ok for 31 march

   < emma> ross said he would joint

   < rsinger> i think i signed up for this, right?

   < rsinger> ok, confirmation from emma :)

   edsu:If anyone is interested, speak up.

   < emma> suggests we record a formal action

   < emma> +1

   < rsinger> +1

   < scribe> ACTION:edsu, rsinger, emma to create a few bullet points
   on the benefits of linked data in libraries for the call on March
   31st [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
   tes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

   < edsu> pmurray: cheers

   antoine:Next report item is "Use cases and requirements"
   ... to be presented as a separate deliverable as a clean snapshot
   from the community
   ... we don't have an owner for this deliverable

   Call for owner of UC deliverable:
   [14]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0038.h
   tml

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

   antoine:this isn't intended to be extremely big.
   ... no one is volunteering, so we will leave this open for a couple
   more weeks.

   < monica> I am very sorry but I am over-committed in March-April -
   this needs to be finished quite soon doesn't it?

   antoine:Next report item is "Available data (vocabularies,
   datasets)"
   ... hoping to make progress on this for presentation on April 14th
   ... Next report section is "Relevant technologies (as described in
   #6 in
   [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.h
   tml)"

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

   < emma> @monica : current schedule is april 7th but could be
   postponed (will be, anyway, if no owner)

   antoine:Jeff has started a page on the wiki

   < antoine_>
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Tools#Tools_List

     [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Tools#Tools_List

   < jeff_> [17]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Tools

     [17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Tools

   antoine:on this topic there is a related ACTION:

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

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

   antoine:sent a message asking the authors if they wanted to reframe
   it into producing a section of "relevant technology" for the report

   < antoine_>
   [19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0034.h
   tml

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

   jeff:Is concerned that the message got caught in the spam folder.
   ... has put bullets that were relevant in there. is looking for a
   mre relevant way to express this.

   antoine:Skiping over "Problems and limitations" the final section is
   "Requirements and recommendations"

   kcoyle:Requirements and Recommendations follows from issues, so
   these two follow

USE CASE CLUSTERS- ONGOING ACTIONS

   < scribe> ACTION:Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
   [recorded in
   [20]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minu
   tes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

     [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03

PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS / ISSUES - SECTION IN REPORT

   < emma>
   [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page

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

   kcoyle:Started by consolidating all of the problems and issues from
   the use cases
   ... distilled them down into categories and rewrote them as
   paragraphs
   ... The important thing for today is to see if these 5 points
   resonate with everyone else.
   ... Do they capture the key points that have been brought out?

   < emma> +1, this is a great start

   kcoyle:the first main area is: "Linked Data is an emerging
   technology"
   ... the second point is "Library data is expressed in
   library-specific formats that cannot be easily shared outside the
   library community"
   ... the third point is "Current library data practices are expensive
   (and the true costs are unmeasured)"
   ... how could we say that moving to LLD is a good return on
   investment.
   ... the fourth point is "Library ecosystem is designed for stability
   and resists change"
   ... the fifth point is "Library data may be protected by IP rights
   that prevent open publication"

   < rsinger> yeah, that's great, karen

   < antoine_> +1

   < jeff_> +1

   kcoyle:a question is "Are these too broad?"

   emma:Doesn't think they are too broad; they are at the right level
   for the report.
   ... hasn't looked in detail at the "Not Used" page, but how do we
   know we haven't missed any (such as the quality of the data itself).
   ... Is everything captured or do we think there are more details?

   kcoyle:The subgroup went through the list and thinks everything has
   been captured.

   < edsu> kcoyle++ # really nice job

   kcoyle:we try to make statements about the data. e.g., the data is
   quality data, but it is text data not data data

   antoine:Suggests everyone look at this document and see if they find
   their own issues in here.

   rsinger:Wants to add someing to emerging technology. Libraries are
   used to existing techology.
   ... it is going to be difficult for people to even envision the cost
   when we have been using the same technology stack for 20 years.

   kcoyle:That is a good point. Some of that may come through in the
   "library ecosystem designed for stability" but will look at it to
   make sure it is in there.
   ... previous changes have been minor compared to this change.

   < rsinger> yes, definitely!

   edsu:It is a nice summary. It is a good detail level.

   < rsinger> (both edsu and TomB :)

   edsu:in the section on the library ecosystem, did the group think
   about the library culture and compare it to the web culture?

   < TomB> Ed: contrasting library culture and Web culture.

   edsu:web culture is about "now".

   < jeff_> the clash of terminology between the Web and libraries is
   part of the problem

   kcoyle:Didn't get it in here, but thinks it is important to contrast
   the two cultures
   ... jodi had come up with this, and had talked about how it is a
   necessary difference
   ... it is a tension that wee need to point out.

   < emma> seems to me this web vs. libs culture issue is addressed in
   the "library standards" paaragraph within "library ecosystem" ,
   could be more explicit

   < Zakim> TomB, you wanted to wonder whether there is a problem with
   "models" (e.g., FRBR), e.g., compatibility with the outside world

   TomB:Do we have a category that addresses some of the issues of the
   compatibility of linked data expressions being developed in the
   library world around FRBR and RDA?
   ... affirming the need for library standards to play well with
   non-library data.
   ... the contrast between traditional culture of defining data
   formats and the semantic web culture of making statements bout
   things.
   ... there are a bundle of issues that he is not sure have been
   captured in these five topics.

   kcoyle:Maybe we can broaden the statement of library data being
   expressed in library-specific formats.
   ... there are emerging standards, but they are following the old
   model and don't look like linked data.
   ... we don't know how library functionality and linked data are
   compatible. e.g. managing resources in the libraries.
   ... library is an institution, it is not information. actual
   organizations that manage budgets and inventory
   ... there is something else there, so we need to talk about what we
   mean by library data.
   ... suggests that what we mean by library data is about the library
   delivery functionally and not the data that does acquisitions and
   accounting

   TomB:There are some types of data that sould be in silos for
   technical reasons. That needs to be stated early in the report.
   ... we can make a distinction between library data in the library
   and how it is exposed to the internet

   kcoyle:Yes, and would like that to be near the top of the report. It
   introduces some of the things that come into the report.
   ... that some data needs to be in silos could come in here as well.
   ... maybe instead of having a section about IP rights, could say
   there is library data that cannot be shared -- some is bibliographic
   and some is not

   TomB:Part of the issue belongs there and part belongs in 1.2.

   < Zakim> emma, you wanted to speak about linked enterprise data

   emma:Quite a restricted definition of linked data as -open- linked
   data.
   ... using the principles of linked data as an internal
   representation within the enterprise.

   < edsu> emma++ # linked data still useful in the enterprise ;
   sometimes i wonder if it's more useful there :)

   < jeff_> emma++

   emma:can we use linked data principles to build internal systems?

   < TomB> +1 good point about LED - use of LD technology inside the
   firewall

   emma:at the beginning people thought of web data as publishing; now
   we have websites using the same principles that are for internal
   only

   kcoyle:That would be good to put at the beginning of the report,
   that our emphasis is on discovery data that could be shared but it
   can also be used in the enterprise as well.

   < edsu> emma: we should remember that for the benefits page ... ah
   you just said it

   emma:It is a benefit that can also improve the efficiency inside the
   organization.

   kcoyle:Brings up the issue of not being able to say anything about
   return-on-investement. Doesn't think we will have that.
   ... perhaps need to add linked data as a benefit to the larger
   system.

   edsu:Hesitant to add anything like that because we don't have enough
   practice yet to say something like that.

   kcoyle:It starts to sound evangelical and not scientific.

   edsu:...or even honest. It doesn't need to be statistically sound.
   ... emma's point about linked data versus linked open data needs to
   be brought out. the two are commonly thought of together.
   ... using these technologies doesn't necessarily entail dumping your
   data out on the web

   kcoyle:Good point. How do we want to say what we are addressing in
   this report?
   ... are we addressing linked data or open linked data?

   < GordonD> We should address both open and closed LD

   edsu:Personal opinion is that this is about linked data and
   libraries. There are all kinds of libraries, even those that are
   closed off to the public. (e.g. corporate, some gov't)
   ... we need to talk about the openness part of it.
   ... a lot of the benefits accrue by sharing information. Something
   that libraries typically have done.

   < monica> I think you can say that the report mainly addresses
   open/discovery linked data (because mainly that is what we have
   discussed) but acknowledge that data does not have to be open and
   can serve other purposes

   < GordonD> Case study: personal identity management in institutions:
   closed (who borrows what books) vs open (who wrote the paper in the
   institutional repository)

   kcoyle:We haven't really put an emphasis on users.
   ... one of the things that FRBR does is put all of the justification
   on service to users.
   ... we've been talking about the advantages of the data. we need to
   say somewhere early in the report that we look at this because it
   improves services to users.

   antoine:That is the idea of the use cases. For what the user
   benefits from.

   kcoyle:So in the same way we went through the use cases looking for
   issues, have someone go through the use cases looking for advantages
   to users.

   < GordonD> Use case clusters should have digested the benefits for
   users ...

   edsu:It is in the same space as the "benefits of LD for libraries"

   antoine:Supports TomB's widening suggestion about formats

   < TomB> Antoine, I see it as a separate point, but that's a detail
   to discuss...

   antoine:Supports adding Monica's IRC comment into 1.5

   kcoyle:yes, and adding the benefits of open if you can do it

   antoine:Suggests making it a bit more positive.

   < edsu> :)

   antoine:can be editorial changes.
   ... as much as possible, make recommendations things that can be
   done, and that helps offset this.

   kcoyle:Other than making the changes brought up today, should we
   move to the recommendations section? What is the next step?

   antoine:There are still notes of things to be completed in the
   issues section.

   kcoyle:The issues and recommendations will be an iterative process.

   < emma> +1 for brainstorming on recommendations starting next week

   < TomB> +1 flesh out the recommendations - agree this is an
   iterative process

   antoine:This makes sense; starting with the recommendations.

   < GordonD> Fine with me

   < GordonD> I've got some time ...

   < scribe> ACTION:everyone to take a look at the issues and make sure
   that points from the use cases are represented in the document
   [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
   tes.html#action04]

   < Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask for scribe for next week
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ScribeDuty

     [23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ScribeDuty

   < kcoyle> [24]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ScribeDuty

     [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ScribeDuty

   < marcia> :-)

   < scribe> ACTION:everyone (on the call and off) to send email
   message in the next week re brainstorming on important issues
   [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minu
   tes.html#action08] [DONE]

     [25] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html#action08

   < scribe> ACTION:As a future topic for March 10, discuss the open
   questions in the second half of
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
   linked_data[recorded in
   [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
   tes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

     [26] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
     [27] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action03

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION:edsu, rsinger, emma to create a few bullet points on
   the benefits of linked data in libraries for the call on March 31st
   [recorded in
   [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
   tes.html#action01]
   [NEW] ACTION:everyone to take a look at the issues and make sure
   that points from the use cases are represented in the document
   [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
   tes.html#action04]

   [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
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minu
   tes.html#action04]
   [PENDING] ACTION:As a future topic for March 10, discuss the open
   questions in the second half of
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
   linked_data [recorded in
   [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
   tes.html#action03]
   [PENDING] ACTION:Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
   [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minu
   tes.html#action03]

     [30] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html#action04
     [31] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
     [32] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action03
     [33] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03

   [DONE] ACTION:everyone (on the call and off) to send email message
   in the next week re brainstorming on important issues [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minu
   tes.html#action08]

     [34] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html#action08

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [35]scribe.perlversion 1.135 (
    [36]CVS log)
    $Date: 2011/03/17 21:17:38 $

     [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, 17 March 2011 21:39:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 March 2011 21:39:11 GMT