- From: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:04:01 +0100
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
The minutes of Thursday's call are at
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/14-lld-minutes.html
A text version follows.
Sorry for the delay, and please let me know of any corrections needed!
Thanks!
-Jodi
==================================
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
LLD XG
14 Apr 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0025.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-lld-irc
Attendees
Present
antoine, Jodi, Asaf, AlexanderH, emma, GordonD, kefo,
pmurray, TomB, jeff_, Marcia, Uldis, rsinger, edsu, rayd,
digikim, jneubert
Regrets
Kai, Daniel, Felix
Chair
Tom
Scribe
Jodi
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]ADMIN
2. [6]BENEFITS OF LINKED DATA FOR LIBRARIES
3. [7]PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS
4. [8]RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
5. [9]AVAILABLE DATA (VOCABULARIES, DATASETS)
6. [10]RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES
7. [11]NOTE ON ARCHITECTURE AND CACHING
8. [12]NOTE ON POTENTIAL LLD WEB SERVICES
9. [13]USE CASES
10. [14]HOUSECLEANING
11. [15]AOB
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<antoine> Previous: 2011-04-07
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minu
tes.html
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html
<kefo> oh no. Sorry, my regrets - I have a conflicting meeting.
<TomB> can you all hear me?
I can hear you ok, TomB
<Uldis> audio is breaking up, can't hear TomB either
<edsu> i have to leave the telecon early, unfortunately
<edsu> but thought i would listen while i can
<TomB> having trouble dialing in - waiting for operator assistance.
Can Antoine or Emmanuelle please start with the admin details?
ADMIN
RESOLUTION: To accept last week's minutes
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minu
tes.html
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html
Antoine: In an upcoming telcon (possibly next week), Harry Halpin
(or someone else from W3C) will talk about the possibility of a W3C
Community Group forming after this group finishes. W3C Community
Group is more informal. This would be an interesting way to continue
the work that has been done in this group.
<ww> harry++
TomB: Dialing in with a phone now.
... Next item is the Asia-Pacific teleconference. Dixon and Hideoki
have expressed interest. There is a doodle poll:
[19]http://www.doodle.com/e86qabb6kegceagr
[19] http://www.doodle.com/e86qabb6kegceagr
<antoine>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0026.h
tml
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0026.html
Most likely dates are April 27th or 28th. The hour is expected to be
9 PM on the U.S. West Coast, midnight on the U.S. East Coast, which
is early AM hours for European time.
Ed: Would it be ok for Dan Chudnov to sit in on that call? (Japan
context)
TomB: Sure, Ed.
TomB: I did a significant restructuring of draft report. I also
emoved the draft text for now, so it's now a list of
sections:[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
TomB We also have some separate deliverables:
... Use Case Report (Daniel is working on this)
... LLD Vocabularies and Datasets (we'll discuss this later on the
call)
... There was an action on Kim to update the transcluded version of
the report.
<scribe> ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the
report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minu
tes.html#action06] -- continues
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06
BENEFITS OF LINKED DATA FOR LIBRARIES
TomB: Benefits of LD for libraries will be discussed in an upcoming
call, in 2 weeks.
Ross: We decided against turning the benefits lists into stories...
it would be redundant.
<scribe> ACTION: Cluster owners to check the bullet-point list in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
reflects their understanding and covers relevant points [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minu
tes.html#action04] -- continues
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action04
<scribe> ACTION: edsu, emma, rsinger to create narrative text and
add to bullet-points [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minu
tes.html#action05] -- continues
[25] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action05
PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS
TomB: There are two wiki pages... which one should we be looking at?
<digikim_> I have some problem in contactin irc.w3.org
<scribe> ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the
report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minu
tes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06
<digikim_> Jodi: about my task: based on Thomas Baker email on the
list, the DraftReport wikipage is outdated, so I did not proceed at
the moment with the transclusion task
<Jodi> thanks digikim :)
<TomB> @digikim - it makes sense to hold off on transclusion for now
<digikim_> TomB: yes
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
TomB: Recommendations is being drafted as the second half of the
draft issues page
<pmurray>
[27]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
[27] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
TomB: I'm not sure if we want a different term. Generally,
'requirements', means what needs to be achieved in general, to be
extracted from the issues. But when I think of requirements, I
assume that there's a specific application that is being designed.
TomB: LLD is such a large thing that I have a little bit of
difficulty calling this requirements. Does anyone else have a
problem with calling this 'requirements'?
... The content is pretty clear, but do we want to call the section
'requirements'? Or is it a non-issue?
<Jodi> I'm not sure it's a nonissue. But what else can it be called?
<Asaf> I do see your point
<emma> issues ?
TomB: "What needs to be done?" is another possibility
<GordonD> What needs to be done +1
<Jodi> agree w/Gordon: +1 to What needs to be done -- but offline
discussion will help
<emma> +1, at least that's clear !
TomB: Alright, let's take this offline for further discussion
AVAILABLE DATA (VOCABULARIES, DATASETS)
TomB: This is the section that we want to spend the most time on
today.
<antoine> someone wants to jump in?
TomB: Antoine, Jeff, Marcia, William, would anyone like to jump in
and introduce this?
<marcia> antoine
<Jodi> (deafening silence...)
Antoine: I sent an email to the list yesterday morning:
[28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0015.h
tml
on the status of the "LLD vocabularies and datasets" deliverable. We
are focusing on the deliverable first, before focusing on the
"available data" section of the report
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0015.html
Antoine: This draft, for the moment, contains 2 main sections. The
first is on metadata element sets.
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
Every metadata element set mentioned in the use cases is given a
short description -- a 1 line description, its xmlns name space, and
a link to the use cases which mention it.
These are metadata element sets like Dublin Core, VOID, SKOS, ...
... Many of these element sets are connected together. Some reuse
others; some specialize others.
... This is a crucial element of having these elements published as
LD, for the data consumer or for the people who are managing these
elements sets.
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
Antoine: The graph is a draft -- just a drawing to show what we are
aiming at. We will follow the conventions set by Bernard and his
colleagues (see link)
<antoine> [30]http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/
[30] http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/
<GordonD> +1 Mondeca stuff
Antoine: We also have some Metadata Element Sets that are not yet
LD, some not even being worked on at the moment. Should we include
those in the same way as the LD elements? Feedback welcome!
... We also have some questions on MODS and PREMIS -- what is the
status of these for the moment? Does anyone know?
<Jodi> Maybe the metadata element sets that aren't yet LD should go
into requirements/what needs to be done?
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that I put a placeholder in
the document at
[31]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
#Definitions_and_scope for defining
[31] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Definitions_and_scope
TomB: I took the liberty of putting in a placeholder at the
beginning of the document, for definitions and scope
... someplace in this deliverable we need to refer to the metadata
element set, value vocabulary, and dataset.
... Those definitions are already on the wiki:
[32]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_ex
plained#Definitions
[32] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Definitions
Antoine: Yes, it makes sense to have this at the start, we had this
in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
#Relevant_LLD_Metadata_element_sets_-_anno_2011
... The second section is on value vocabularies and datasets:
[34]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
#Value_vocabularies_and_Datasets
... both of them are grouped here because we want to position that
section together with the CKAN LLD group
... The CKAN group is dealing with both value vocabularies and
datasets. This may not be practical for the deliverable, but it's
what we started with.
... A bit of a presentation with the LLD group
[33] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Relevant_LLD_Metadata_element_sets_-_anno_2011
[34] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Value_vocabularies_and_Datasets
scribe:(?)
Antoine: William has started to visualize the content of the CKAN
LLD group as a cloud, to make it analogous to the LOD cloud, but
focused on the library domain.
<ww> at the moment, i am re-adding in the void part so that we can
easily work with inter-dataset links and such
Antoine: Your input would be welcome here. The screenshot here is
William's idea, and he's continuing to work on it:
[35]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LLD-Cloud-Draft.p
ng
... One idea is to make links between the datasets explicit. Please
share other ideas!
[35] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LLD-Cloud-Draft.png
<antoine>
[36]http://semantic.ckan.net/viz/group.html?group=http://ckan.net/gr
oup/lld
[36] http://semantic.ckan.net/viz/group.html?group=http://ckan.net/group/lld
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that the text in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_ex
plained#Definitions is more detailed than text already in
[37] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Definitions
<marcia> [38]http://ckan.net/group/bibliographic
[38] http://ckan.net/group/bibliographic
Antoine: This should give a nice overview of what is published
already, so then we want to dive into each dataset and value
vocabulary, similar to what was done in the first section for the
metadata element sets
... We were lucky to be able to reuse Marcia's webpage which already
describes many of these value vocabularies.
... There's more work left for the second section, we'll populate
this in the next couple of weeks.
... We have a bit of hesitation: Should we list everything that's in
the LLD cloud (even though it might not be mentioned in the use
cases)? Should we list everything that's mentioned in the use cases,
even if it's not in LLD yet?
... So far, we want to make explicit what's available already AND
what's not yet available. Opinions/feedback welcome!
... Finally for the datasets we'll give descriptions, but reuse is
more limited, so we'll focus less on describing them.
... For a newcomer, reuse is more key.
... For example instance data about books may not be as interesting.
... Opinions welcome!
TomB: For the final step, will this be published in HTML or a wiki
document?
Antoine: An HTML document would be ideal, reusing the W3C Group Note
template.
TomB: Is there a nice routine for converting from wiki to HTML
template?
Antoine: Not sure -- W3C doesn't have wiki templates.
TomB: A practical issue is that a lot of the links are wiki links
which need to be converted into hyperlinks, etc
<Jodi> There should be general converters from MediaWiki to HTML
which could give a start... then hand-finish.
Antoine: We'll need to check these to figure out where things go
(final report vs. separate deliverable) as well.
... Let's move back to getting feedback?
... The first area for suggestions is about the graphs. We think we
can do some interesting stuff. Suggestions?
... Tom and Jodi already started a discussion about the possible
links and their meaning. There are several approaches to make links
and represent them.
<marcia>
[39]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LLD-MetadataEleme
ntSetCloudMock.png
[39] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/File:LLD-MetadataElementSetCloudMock.png
Antoine: The second area for feedback is the description grain. Are
these descriptions sufficient?
TomB: Somebody on last week's call--William?--talked about using
visigraph. Is that related to this cloudgraph?
Antoine: William and his colleagues are using this JavaScript
library.
TomB: So there are tools for doing this.
Antoine: Given William's contribution for the CKAN LLD cloud, the
technical aspects should be straightforward.
<ww> using protovis
Antoine: We have two other important questions (beyond the two
above):
... First, are there things you think are crucial that should be
covered?
<Uldis> tools for converting MediaWiki pages into other formats:
[40]http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
[40] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
<ww> what i want to do, and should shortly have enough information
to, is (1) make links explicit within that big circle, (2) have
non-lld datasets that are linked to be outside the big circle, and
linked... if that meks sense
<ww> it'll take a bit of protovis fiddling obviously
Antoine: Finally, we want feedback on categorization. We're
considering reorganizing by topic/coverage. We would like group
feedback on this.
<marcia> *Antoine: thanks!
TomB: One way of getting input from the community would be to post
to public-lld to ask about the coverage. e.g. Are there reference
vocabularies that are missing? To get more people to look at it.
<jeff_> Thanks Antoine
TomB: Any more discussion on the available data section?
<marcia> *ww: Do you mean the open source software at:
[41]http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/? thanks.
[41] http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/?
TomB: Is there already a wiki page for the section that will go into
the final report? If not, should we create one?
<antoine>
[42]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0015.h
tml
[42] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0015.html
TomB: It looks like it will have a few pointers, a few
representative datasets, and a summary of the longer deliverable. Is
that right?
<TomB> ww, thank you for the explanation!
Antoine: There's no wiki page yet. The listserv message talks about
this a little
... Identifying gaps will be important, we can link with issues or
recommendations to make sure that the gaps are listed there, or make
a separate section of issues/recommendations, but this depends on
other sections and on their separate deliverables.
<ww> marcia: yes
Antoine: It will be way easier to create this once we have a
visualization of the datasets and how they are related, and a
categorization of the value vocabularies.
<ww> same as what the mondeca folks and edsu use for these sorts of
things
<marcia> ww: thank you!
<TomB> +1 having a nice graph will really help!
Antoine: For FRBR, for instance, there are 4-5 ontologies available
<Jodi> -- so not just gaps but *choices* need to be taken into
account>
TomB: So you envision directly plugging some of these issues into
the other issues document?
... These documents are editable by everyone in the group, so that
would be one way to do that
... Thank you, Antoine, I think having a graphic will really help in
presenting that material.
RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES
TomB: What is the idea of the "relevant technologies" section? To
have something high-level, with simple typology of tools, and
pointers to maintained lists. And of course a disclaimer that "this
is not exhaustive"--it will go out of date. Is that right?
... Do you envision this as a separate deliverable?
Jeff: I can envision a paragraph that does this.
... I can draft something about this this afternoon.
... Not yet clear whether we point to maintained lists or create a
separate section
TomB: I would envision doing that as a wiki page, even if it's a
paragraph or two, then we can put it in as a section of the report
outline.
Jeff: ok, "RelevantTechnology"
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff to create a wiki page on "RelevantTechnology"
and link it to the report outline [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/14-lld-minu
tes.html#action05]
TomB: See also the Tool category of the wiki:
[44]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Tool
[44] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Tool
NOTE ON ARCHITECTURE AND CACHING
TomB: There is an action on Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP to
elaborate on a general purpose IT architecture. What is the status
of that?
Jeff: This was in the back of my mind when I was creating the tools
page.
... The 'relevant technologies' is sort of a disclaimer that there
*is* no coherent architecture, other than the Web standards.
TomB: Could the points you want to make here be folded into the
Relevant Technologies section?
Jeff: exactly!
<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
[45]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action04] -- continues
[45] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html#action04
TomB: This will be an aspect of RelevantTechnologies
NOTE ON POTENTIAL LLD WEB SERVICES
TomB: Kevin and Joachim have written a note on potential LLD Web
services:
[46]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD
[46] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD
:(
Joachim: Had a dentist operation.
... Let's do this next time.
USE CASES
TomB: Daniel is working on the Use Case report, it's coming along
nicely.
HOUSECLEANING
TomB: I moved around the structure of the draft report.
... We're in wind-up stage, and we're running out of time for
outreach
... I gathered up the raw material, moved them to the end of the
report, to see more clearly what parts were actively being worked
on.
... Are there any links in here which are being actively worked on?
(from the Community building, outreach, related activities and
resources section)
... Or can we park these links?
... I created a section of the wiki "Intermediate Deliverables" and
listed a lot of these documents there so that they don't get lost,
but so that they're not actually on our active agenda.
<antoine> Seems alright...
<Jodi> need to look at these, but seems reasonable from a first
glance
AOB
<Asaf> Do we have any "review readers" or "advance copies" thing
going on?
TomB: We don't have review readers now, but next week or the week
after we will start assigning reviewers to various sections. It
feels to me like the individual groups still need a little more time
to polish their sections.
<Asaf> sure, that sounds good.
TomB: I think it would be a little premature to start sending them
out for review.
<digikim_> thanks
TomB: I take silence as rough consent that I haven't made any
blunders in putting these links at the end of the agenda. Look
forward to talking to you all next week!
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Jeff to create a wiki page on "RelevantTechnology" and
link it to the report outline [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/14-lld-minu
tes.html#action05]
[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
[48]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Cluster owners to check the bullet-point list in
[49]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
reflects their understanding and covers relevant points [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the
report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in
[51]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minu
tes.html#action06]
[PENDING] ACTION: edsu, emma, rsinger to create narrative text and
add to bullet-points [recorded in
[52]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minu
tes.html#action05]
[48] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html#action04
[49] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
[50] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action04
[51] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06
[52] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action05
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [53]scribe.perl version 1.135
([54]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/04/19 13:23:18 $
[53] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[54] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 14:04:32 UTC