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

Minutes of 2011-05-05 LLD meeting

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:44:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4DC9A3AF.9090303@few.vu.nl>
To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi everyone,

The minutes of our call today are at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html
A text version follows.
Thanks to Ed for scribing!





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

                                 LLD XG

05 May 2011


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

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-lld-irc


           antoine, kcoyle, edsu, monica, emma, AlexanderH, michaelp,
           uldis, jeff_, [IPcaller], Felix, Tom_Baker, GordonD, +jodi,
           kefo, dvilasuero

           Ray, Ross, Joachim, Marcia, Lars, Peter, Kim, Kai




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Admin
          2. [6]Final Report Draft
          3. [7]Recommendations
      * [8]Summary of Action Items

    <antoine> Previous:

       [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0064.html

    <uldis> hi

    <antoine> Scribe: Ed

    <antoine> Scribenick: edsu

    <pmurray> Unexpected regrets for today. Last minute family doctor's


    RESOLVED To accept

      [10] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/21-lld-minutes.html


      [11] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/28-lld-minutes.html

    antoine: we have a few reasons for wanting a charter extension
    ... we believe some more time would get us some time for a wider set
    of readers outside of this group, on the public discussion list and
    the lod-lam summit

    antoine: we also will have harry halpin talking about w3c community
    groups next week, and would like some more time to think about and
    discuss this and other options
    ... is everyone ok with that, any objections?


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

    <jodi> reviewing_time++

    <GordonD> +1 for charter extension

    <uldis> +1

    <michaelp> +1 for extension

    <Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about telecons

    <dvilasuero> +1 for charter extension (having problems with my ip

    <TomB> +1 for extension

    emma: are we going to maintain the weekly teleconferences during the

    <TomB> +1 one call every two weeks

    antoine: perhaps one call every two weeks would be more than enough

    <GordonD> +1 for call every two weeks

    antoine: we don't need to meet every week for the continuation of
    the work

    emma: i agree, that would be good

    antoine: if we don't get any serious objection on the list in the
    next 2 or 3 days, i think tom, emma and myself will ask for the

    <dvilasuero> +1 for bi-weekly calls

    antoine: the current teleconf schedule ends in may, we will be
    working on that

Final Report Draft

    antoine: the benefits section, a little report?

    <antoine> ed: no progress since last call

    <antoine> ... Tom has put content

    <antoine> ... it's largely there

    <emma> [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits

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

    antoine: feel free to send an email to get some reviewers

    kcoyle: we discussed the benefits at one of the recommendation calls
    ... the globally unique identifiers needs to be more specific for


      [14] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits#.22Library_Linked_Data.22:_Scope_of_this_report

    kcoyle: not general benefits

    <emma> I can give it a try maybe

    <jodi> Thanks Emma!

    <antoine> kcoyle: we need someone from the benefits section to help

    <jodi> oops

    kcoyle: needs to be specific to those institutions

    <jodi> thanks emma!


      [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits

    <antoine> edsu: ross come with a paragraph

    <antoine> kcoyle: that's what I'm looking for

    <antoine> edsu: there's a bit in the benefits for researchers,
    patrons etc.

    <antoine> ... that talks about the benefits of making data more

    <antoine> .. is that it?

    <antoine> kcoyle: we want to emphasize the benefits for libraries

    <TomB> [[

    <TomB> Tom: The Issues/Recommendations group thinks this section may
    be too general and that points in this section could be reworded to
    emphasize the benefits for Libraries and Library Data: greater
    visibility for library data, and re-use of library data. The more
    data is re-used, the more value it has. And libraries able to
    provide services - e.g., researchers add citations into their

    <TomB> ...directly from library. Libraries need to be more visible
    in order to justify.

    <TomB> ]]

    <Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that the Scope section has
    been penciled in but needs to be written

    <kcoyle> def. of lib (DRAFT) Library in this report refers to an
    agent which administers a collection of information resources
    curated for a designated community and provides services around
    those resources. Collections may be public or private, large or
    small, and are not limited to any particular types of resources.
    Collection and preservation of resources are key functions of
    libraries that are...

    <kcoyle> ...not shared widely in the information space and therefore
    are given particular attention.

    <antoine> edsu: there is sentence on the scope in the benefits:
    works, persons, concepts

    <antoine> ... can't it answer what is library LD?

    <emma> TomB: it's more about the motivations of libraries as

    TomB: greater visibility, more reused the more valuable, etc
    ... libraries increasing their relevance

    <jodi> Tom made my point: focusing on the *why* for libraries -- the
    benefits from the perspective of a library organization

    <emma> TomB: better services for data, facilitating reuse of data,
    increasing visibility & relevance, that sort of things

    TomB: pitching things so that decision makers will understand it

    <emma> kcoyle: target library managers

    <jodi> hopefully we'll get a library director or two to read this
    section during our review period to get some feedback

    antoine: maybe the owners of the document can use these comments to
    revise the document for next week

    <emma> ok for me

    <emma> good idea, Jodi, +1 !

    antoine: next we are to talk about problems and limitations

    <scribe> ACTION: Gordon and Karen to consider relation between
    problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page.
    [recorded in
    tes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

      [16] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01

    antoine: next, we'll talk about relevant technologies
    ... also kevin had something to say about library linked data web

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


      [18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011May/0027.html

    kefo: joachim contacted me, and we were thinking of trimming our
    section and integrating it into the relevant technologies
    ... if someone wants to do that it would be fine by me

    antoine: thanks kevin, i think that's a good idea
    ... jeff is that ok?

    jeff_: yes, sounds great

    antoine: i think
    ogies is ready to be reviewed
    ... pretty close to claim victory on it, once kevin's stuff is added
    ... jeff you could send an email to the group list asking for
    ... there hasn't been any progress since the last teleconference on
    the vocabularies and datasets section
    ... daniel do you have an update on the use case deliverable?

      [19] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
      [20] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset

    dvilasuero: i have about 1/2 of the report finished, and plan to
    update on the wiki and will send an email to the group
    ... i could use some help with some of the use cases, some of them
    could use some refinement, is it ok to email the owners?

    antoine: yes
    ... you should be able to get the help from cluster owners



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

    antoine: first of all, congratulations on doing what you have done
    so far on the public list!



      [22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendations_page

    kcoyle: based on comments we re-organized it around actions
    ... we did this mainly on the talk page:
    ... we start out w/ an assess action, what datasets one might choose
    to convert first, or use first in a linked data type environment
    ... which is followed by planning, different paths one can take,
    having a discussion about data & rights
    ... the names of these things can change as much as you like
    ... then we have facilitate, to get across the idea of innovation,
    literacy, education
    ... then design, where we do modeling ; prepare, for best practices
    ; collaborate for getting involved in the community ; and finally
    ... helps get a better vision in terms of recommendations
    ... if there are actions that aren't in here, we'll need to add them
    in ... did we get everything that people care about?

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

    emma: i'm wondering if this new organization of recommendations has
    the same purpose as the previous one ; is the purpose different?

    <antoine> +1

    emma: maybe you could indicate who typically cares about these
    actions, for people to understand easier

    kcoyle: we're still trying to come up with a way to think about this
    to make sure we have everything in it, but the final version will
    indicate who the stakeholders are
    ... we need to think about who we are addressing at various points
    in the report

    antoine: i think this problem of targeting the specific audience
    would be more relevant for your section ... i think i like it, but
    it seems like a business plan, if there was a way to flag the
    specific actions as for particular people

    kcoyle: what we had before, our high levels weren't very evocative
    ... maybe with this new division we can see if it helps us identify
    the stakeholders
    ... what stakeholders do we want to be addressing here?
    ... i think we want management

    antoine: also catalogers

    <emma> developpers

    <emma> standard creators

    <emma> cataloguers

    kcoyle: we want to include everybody, but if we have to divide up
    the page by stakeholders, we need some number of stakeholders

    <emma> +1 Antoine : for each recommendation, give an idea of who
    we're adressing

    kcoyle: maybe for each action we could say who we are addressing
    ... even if it is only for us

    <TomB> +1 to address each recommendation to a specific target

    kcoyle: there will be activities that need to be addressed by more
    than one stakeholder
    ... we haven't used this to redesign the whole page yet, we were
    waiting for this discussion

    antoine: maybe we can see the discussion

    <emma> +1 for redesigning

    <antoine> edsu: I like the focus on actions

    <antoine> ... providing more on who to take the action is useful

    <antoine> ... but as such it's good for the management level

    <TomB> Ed: likes it alot. Likes focus on action. Agree with Antoine,
    Emma - who we want to take the action. Alot of these seem business-y
    - good for mgt people, but speaking as a developer, if I could point
    to this "want to collaborate more" - would be useful.

    <GordonD> stakeholder category "cataloguer" is better expressed as
    "data manager" (for archives, museums, etc.)

    <TomB> ...sometimes people are left wondering what they can do to

    <jodi> +1 for moral support

    <TomB> Karen: Part about "collaborating" - "moral support" for
    people who want to work in this area.

    antoine: anyone have any more comments?

    <GordonD> stakeholder categories might be: service managers (senior
    management); data managers; technical developers; standards
    developers; educators

    kcoyle: we need to look through this to make sure there isn't
    anything that's like a bomb

    <jodi> +1 to asking reviewers about unintended misreadings that are

    emma: i think it's great to discuss the recommendations one by one
    on the list, i think we should go on with it

    kcoyle: i've been trying to do them in logical chunks, and continue
    to try to do that

    antoine: i had a question about vocabulary alignment, is there
    something there in the recommendations?
    ... some guidance on helping align library data with outside data

    <GordonD> Section 1.3.5

    antoine: we have aligning library data with externally produced data
    ... but that was the idea that we didn't want libraries creating yet
    another silo

    kcoyle: in terms of alignment between libraries, i think we to
    describe that carefully, that it doesn't take the place of aligning
    with outside institutions
    ... in the discussion about URIs, people seemed to be agreeing but
    saying the opposite thing
    ... when we say the word "resources" they'll think about the
    metadata for the stuff they own
    ... if you say libraries have to create uris for resoruces, we have
    this big gap, since we have shared authority files ... but we have
    all the bibliographic data, which we don't have identifiers for
    ... there seems to be a different situation between the authority
    files and the bibliographic data

    antoine: the recommendation would still promote the coining uris at
    whatever level is appropriate

    jeff_: i assume that all of these things have internal identifiers,
    you can take those identifiers and slap http on the front of them,
    those are the things that deserve to be http identifiers

    <jeff_> +1

    kcoyle: we can recommend people to use the internal identifiers when
    creeating URIs
    ... my fear is that if we have two different things to say about
    these things

    <jodi> thanks!

    <kefo> bye

    <dvilasuero> thanks!

    antoine: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [CONTINUES] ACTION: Gordon and Karen to consider relation between
    problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page.
    [recorded in

      [24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([26]CVS log)
     $Date: 2011/05/10 20:40:54 $

      [25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
      [26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 20:42:59 UTC

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