- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:30:54 -0500
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Agenda - Feb 17 2011 - LLD XG telecon - 1000 EDT
Source: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/RunningAgenda
Time - http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Telecons#Connection_info
http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar.html#s_4061
0700 Seattle - 1000 New York - 1500 London - 1600 Paris - 2300 Kuala Lumpur
0000 Tokyo - 0200 Sydney (next day)
W3C Library Linked Data Incubator group:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/ - home page
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ - wiki
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/ - group list
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/ - community list
LLD XG telecons:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Telecons
Attendance is restricted to registered XG participants and
persons invited by chairs.
Chair: Tom
Scribe: Uldis?
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/ScribeDuty
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/Scribing.html (how to)
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed#Nicknames
Regrets: Emmanuelle, Monica, Gordon
======================================================================
LOD-LAM Summit: http://lod-lam.net/ - Guest: Jon Voss
ACTION: Tom B to invite Jon Voss for a future telcon, to present http://lod-lam.net/summit/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action01]
--DONE
Goals of summit as per http://lod-lam.net/summit/about/:
-- Identify the tools and techniques for publishing and working with
Linked Open Data.
-- Draft precedents and policy for licensing and copyright considerations
regarding the publishing of library, archive, and museum metadata.
-- Publish definitions and promote use cases that will give LAM staff
the tools they need to advocate for Linked Open Data in their institutions.
======================================================================
ADMIN
-- Minutes of previous telecon
PROPOSED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html
-- Telecons - http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Telecons
Upcoming next telecons, with scheduled chairs and regrets received:
2011-02-24 Antoine, scribe Lars, Monica
2011-03-03 Emmanuelle, scribe Monica
2011-03-10 Tom
2011-03-17 Antoine
-- Dedicated Asia-Pacific time zone telecon - to be scheduled
======================================================================
USE CASE CLUSTERS - KEY SECTION OF FINAL REPORT
ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06]
ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03]
ACTION: GordonD and Karen to curate collection cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/06-lld-minutes.html#action11]
ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing clusters to see where the web service dimension could be strengthened. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13]
======================================================================
FINAL REPORT DRAFT
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportReviewerAssignments
ACTION: Antoine, Emma, TomB to send a call for reviewers to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action14]
ACTION: Jodi to replace placeholders in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport with transclusion code [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action04]
-- done: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion
======================================================================
REVIEWER ASSIGNMENTS
-- as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html
1) What to do with the use cases themselves. In the cluster
texts, summaries of case-study "scenarios" are an
important intermediate step between the raw use cases
and the "extracted use cases" (synthetic summaries).
Should these intermediate analyses find their way into
the final report? For example, should there be a section
in the appendix with a one-sentence summary of each use
case, with links both to the original source and to the
(to-be-frozen) use-case description in the wiki, followed
by bullet points extracted from the cluster analyses?
2) How to characterize the "datasets". According the current
outline, datasets are supposed to be handled in sub-section
1.4.2. of the section "available data". The reviewer
for this section should propose a short text describing
CKAN and its processes. Should we bother trying to list
datasets in the Appendix, knowing that the list will already
be obsolete at the time of publication? The answer to
this question should perhaps depend on what we do with
the use-case summaries (review #1).
3) How to charaterize the "vocabularies". As in #2,
vocabularies are currently penciled in as section
1.4.1. under "available data". The use-case clusters list
vocabularies used. Should these lists be consolidated into
one long, annotated list? And should that list be included
in the body of the report or relegated to an appendix
and summarized in the body of the report? What sorts of
observations or conclusions about vocabularies derived
from the cluster analyses would be appropriate to include
in the body of the report?
4) Where to fit Gordon's analysis of library standards
(starting at [3]). Should the discussion and update on
ISBD, FR, RDA, AACR, MARC, etc be summarized in the body
of the report, and if so, where? It would seem to belong
in the section describing available vocabularies and data
sources, but in that case, should the section be called
"available data" or something more inclusive, such as
"the Ingredients of Library Linked Data" (I hesitate to
call them "elements" :-)? Would the introduction to
this section be the place to include our hard-won and
useful pragmatic distinctions between Element Sets, Value
Vocabularies, and Datasets? Or are these discussions of
recent developments too detailed for the body of the report
and best handled in an appendix?
5) Getting a start on Problems and Limitations (section 1.5).
This reviewer should read the use-case clusters
from the perspective of problems and limitations and
propose how to merge the scattered observations into a
coherent section. One very important wiki page overlooked
in the current transcluded draft is Gordon's analysis
Library_standards_and_linked_data [4].
6) How to handle "relevant technologies". Use-case cluster
analyses list them. Do we want to present a consolidated
list? In the body of the report or in an appendix?
What would be the point of a section specifically about
relevant technologies; do we need one? How would it relate
to the section on Problems and Limitations?
7) Extracting the "benefits". The reviewer should read through
the entire draft and synthesize a first-draft high-level
list of benefits from using a Linked Data approach.
8) Curating the Appendix. It is clear that alot of the detail
should be relegated to an Appendix. Someone should take
ownership of the Appendix, creating [5] and devising for it
a structure, such as:
-- List of annotated use cases.
-- List of annotated vocabularies
-- List of annotated technologies used (if so concluded
on the basis of review #6).
-- List of use cases, briefly described and characterized,
or a longer list of datasets based on CKAN.
We may decide that individual sections of the appendix need
separate curators; the job of the Appendix curator will
simply be to get this section outlined and started.
======================================================================
AOB
--
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 18:31:34 UTC