RE: Agenda - Feb 17 2011 - LLD XG telecon - 1000 EDT

Sorry, I won't be able to make this call.  And I will unfortunately miss
next week as well.  --Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:31 PM
> To: public-xg-lld
> Subject: Agenda - Feb 17 2011 - LLD XG telecon - 1000 EDT
> 
> 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/DraftReportReviewerAssignment
> s
> 
> 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 Thursday, 17 February 2011 16:11:00 UTC