- From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:55:30 +0100
- To: <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Dear all,
The minutes of our call yesterday are at
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html
There is a text version below.
Thanks to everyone who assisted me during my first telecon scribe!
(Until now, I only scribed at the F2F in Pittsburgh...).
All the best,
Lars
============
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
LLD XG
24 Feb 2011
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0078.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/24-lld-irc
Attendees
Present
antoine, emma, TomB, kefo, marcia, PMurray, kcoyle, GordonD,
jeff_, jneubert, LarsG, edsu
Regrets
Ray, Monica, Ross, Asaf, Kai, Uldis, Felix, Jodi
Chair
Antoine
Scribe
Lars
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]minutes
2. [6]Problems & limitations
3. [7]Final report draft
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<antoine> Previous: 2011-02-14
[9]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minut
es.html
[9]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html
<TomB> Chair: Antoine
<antoine> Scribe: Lars
<antoine> Scribenick: LarsG
minutes
<scribe> RESOLVED: accept minutes
[10]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minu
tes.html
[10]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html
minutes accepted
TomB: Eight respondents for telco in Asia pacific
... call next week
kefo: is signed up for scribe duty, but wants to change, if it's in
the middle of the night.
<kcoyle> we should take some minutes, though, for the others --
maybe not formal
tomB: explains it's not a replacement for the regular call but
another call
<scribe> ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email
message in the next week re brainstorming on important issues
[recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minu
tes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
[11]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html
#action08
Antoine: action lead by Karen, created wiki-page
<edsu>
[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
[12] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
kcoyle: collected all emails into the wiki page
Problems & limitations
kcoyle: took care of all issues and limitations from the use cases
... and reorganised them as bullet points which we need to turn into
something better
... tried to pull out sensible issues from them
... we need this group or a subgroup to pull out the key issues
... so that the group can discuss
antoine: are you optimistic? Karen has done great work
kcoyle: pull out many issues, what is the case for LLD?
<GordonD> Clarify that these are issues which are problematic and
limiting ...
<marcia>
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page#From
_the_Use_Cases_.28RAW.29
[13]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page#From_the_Use
_Cases_.28RAW.29
kcoyle: this is where case studies come in and need to be covered by
the report
... we can do some calls and talk about it
antoine: who volunteers to help Karen?
<TomB> TomB volunteers to help
<GordonD> We also need to incorporate stuff from other components of
the Problems and limitations section ...
<pmurray> PMurray volunteers to help
kcoyle: will put a call out on the list
... what do you mean by other stuff?
<GordonD> There's the next item on this week's agenda ...
<GordonD> e.g. the generic issues raised in the Library standards
and linked data section
kcoyle: topics and limitations are included
<emma> I think GordonD thinks about his Library standards issues
page
kcoyle: if you're aware of the issues, the group should add those
in.
<emma>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data
[14]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_d
ata
antoine: Gordon probably refers to wiki pages
<GordonD> I will volunteer to help
kcoyle: will pull those in
antoine: could be interesting
<GordonD> But - I am out of action for all of next week ...
<TomB> +1 to call before next meeting
kcoyle: the group seems big enough, let's do a call between now and
next meeting
<GordonD> So I'll contribute via email ...
antoine: we have the pages created by GordonD on library standards
and lnked data
... now might be the right time to discuss
GordonD: it's probably better to have the small group pull it into
Karen's page
<TomB> I propose March 10
GordonD: we should schedule on which telecon we do it
<GordonD> +1 March 10
antoine: in two weeks time is good, the we can get a clearer picture
<marcia> Jodi sent an email today: "most of the issues we have are
not specific to Library Linked Data, but rather are important for
Linked Data in general."
kcoyle: sounds good
<GordonD> It's a good deadline!
<kcoyle> marcia, there is a section for SW issues -- 1.1.1.8 -- may
need to be renamed/changed, but that is its purpose
<antoine> ACTION: As a future topic for March 10, discuss the open
questions in the second half of
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action03]
[15]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_d
ata
[16]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html
#action03
Antoine: Problem of topic page
... has been main focus point so far, Karen's page can replace that
kcoyle: not a replacement, but a kind of working area
... a place to clarify our thoughts
<emma> [17]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed
<TomB> +1 working area - we will feel freer if we don't worry too
much about how it fits in
<GordonD> Topics are also referenced by use cases and clusters ...
kcoyle: this page is a kind of scribble page, won't replace the
report
... it's too messy to be inside the report
antoine: kind of sandbox to be replaced
kcoyle: content to be extracted into report
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest using TopicsDiscussed as a
checklist
antoine: media wiki categories, idea was to have each issue
represented as its own category. Has anyoune used that?
emma: we should use topics discussed as a checklist, to make sure we
haven't forgotten anything
<kcoyle> +1
emma: it was useful to discuss them at F2F but not for the report.
Karen's work is better
antoine: each topic has its own page
emma: idea was to write a short paragraph on each topic and that
could be transcluded into the other page
... we could make links between topics and use cases
... if we still want to write about each topic, the issues pages is
more organized
antoine: the agenda will keep the topics discussed page
emma: all topics don't have categories, so that won't be complete
antoine: has anyone comments on topics and limitations?
<kcoyle> or send in email
antoine: move on
Final report draft
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data
[18]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_d
ata
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
antoine: six items
1. Executive Summary
2. Benefits of LD for libraries
3. Use cases and requirements (represented via clusters, plus an
annotated list of use cases, plus requirement list?)
4. Available data (vocabularies, datasets)
5. Problems and limitations
6. Recommendations (Vocabularies, Identifiers, Data modeling,
Architecture, Links, General education and outreach, Curricula)
antoine: for each item there are several choices:
... only summary of the topic
... or keep things at the Wiki
... or make an appendix
... we must agree on how to proceed
... first item: Exec summary
<kcoyle> +1
<emma> +1
scribe: fully fledged section
<kefo> +1
<kcoyle> and conclusions
TomB: write exec summary as a guide on how to read the document,
high level view of issues
... if we write it now we'll have to rewrite it later
<emma> Exec summary shouldn't be only about issues
<kcoyle> +1
<marcia> Executive Summary should also be made available as separate
unit for print and distribute.
emma: suggest we merge this section with use cases
<kcoyle> ++1
emma: to show benefit of LLD
<marcia> Emma+
<GordonD> +1 to use use cases as illustrations of the benefits
antoine: the benefits of LLD should be the place where UCs are
introduced to the report and perhaps the only place where they're
mentioned
<edsu> emma++
emma: 50 UCs in the report are too many, we should focus more on
benefits, less on limitations, this comes from the clusters
<kcoyle> use cases are proof that there are hoped-for benefits
emma: methodology, how to extract benefits from the UCs
<GordonD> Use cases are a hostage to fortune - first thing a reader
will do is see if there is a familiar use case, and if there isn't
...
antoine: many of the UCs show problems at hand in the scenarios
emma: should we review clusters to get benefits from there
<kcoyle> yes, extract benefits -- see what we get -- add in others
if needed
emma: maybe we should create a subgroup to extract benefits
antoine: agrees. Volunteers?
<GordonD> +1 use cases digested into clusters, clusters digested
into final report
antoine: can emma set up a WG for all volunteers
<kcoyle> +1
<marcia> +1
<scribe> ACTION: emma and ed to start curating a section on benefits
of LLD for libraries [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action06]
antoine: we still have possibility to make UCs a full part of the
report
<kcoyle> as an appendix?
antoine: as a side deliverable
<emma> +1 for a separate deliverable
edsu: support that idea, much work has been put into the UCs
... we can extract for the final report, but should present the UCs
as a separate deliverable
<TomB> +1 for Use Case deliverable
kcoyle: agree, it gives credit and makes visible that people work in
this area, that there are real project and gives credit to those
people
<antoine> +1
antoine: ack
... we need volunteers to take care of that deliverable
emma: go back to initial proposal for clusters: read carefully what
others have written and put it into a report
<kcoyle> +1
<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to suggest we identify editors for the use
case document deliverable, rather than lots of reviewers
<marcia> +1 Emma and Ed
<kcoyle> so we need a use case committee/editors
edsu: still has trouble with too many people edit UCs and
deliverables. better to have just few editors, instead of doing too
much reviewing now
<GordonD> It's the clusters that need reviewed by neutral editors
<emma> @ed +1, just wanted to emphasize that editors of this
deliverable souldn't be the authors of the clusters but other people
antoine: to have a limited number of editors might be an option
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that what Ed is proposing is
what I proposed in point 1 of
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.h
tml
[21]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html
edsu: someone should have it as an action
TomB: proposes that we have someone to take ownership of UC
document, look at case studies and UCs and make a proposal what the
section should look like
<kcoyle> noting that jodi is not on this call (right?) and she did
much of the use case work
<TomB> jodi is not on the call
<kcoyle> +1 and also on the list
antoine: volunteers now or on the list or both?
<GordonD> But owner of uc document should NOT be someone who has
contributed to use cases, clusters ...
<emma> +1 Gordon, we need new perspectives
<GordonD> We need to show objectivity, and a check/balance review is
a good method
antoine: this is what TomB and edsu suggest
<kcoyle> did anyone not contribute or review?
<edsu> :-)
<edsu> hehehe
<edsu> +1 for chairs to figure it out :-)
<kcoyle> ed, i already have tomB on my committee -- no one else can
have him!
<emma> +1
<TomB> +1 for chairs to pick victims :-)
<edsu> kcoyle: wait, what committee is that again?
<scribe> ACTION: emma, TomB, and antoine to send a call for finding
an owner of the UC deliverable [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action07]
<kcoyle> ed, the issues group
<edsu> kcoyle: oh yeah :-D
<GordonD> Available data is too volatile - there's a new
announcement every week
<GordonD> So suggest a summary#
antoine: available data, is this a separate section in the report,
or should we just have summary?
GordonD: we hear news about new library data every week, so it's
better to summarize. We should concentrate on identifying gaps
edsu: disagrees. +1 to identify gaps, and there is an oppurtunity
for people interested to become pointers to work done already
... it might be hard, but we need to talk about what there is now
<marcia> Agree with Ed. List vocabularies and related use cases, not
to give opinions.
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that what Ed is proposing is
what I proposed in point 3 of
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.h
tml
[23]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html
kcoyle: agrees with edsu, perhaps we should pick representative
samples (national libraries, individual contributions) but not as a
definiive list
<marcia> +1 to start from use cases
<edsu> TomB: ok, glad you proposed it -- so i guess that means you
support the idea? :-)
<kcoyle> +1 for putting list related to use cases in use case
document -- as related to use cases
<GordonD> Representative samples is fine with me
<antoine> +1
TomB: somebody should make a proposal to the group, somebody to take
ownership of what to happen with vocabularies section
<GordonD> Relation to CKAN on the vocabularies?
antoine: can somebody take that action?
<kcoyle> +1
<edsu> antoine++
antoine: volunteers himself
<edsu> i would offer to volunteer but i don't want to over-commit
<jeff_> jeff volunteers
<TomB> jeff++
<kcoyle> jeff++
<edsu> i reckon rsinger would be good at that stuff too
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine and jeff_ to make a proposal to the group
about vocabularies and datasets [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action08]
<TomB> The chairs should let EdSu pick victims :-)
antoine: ross might be a good candidate, too
<jeff_> +1
antoine: sees action as making the proposal, but maybe not the
actual work
... we've discussed problems and limitations already
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest that maybe some vocs need
highlighting
kcoyle: can we decide now which topics to discuss next week?
antoine: for many topics we don't have owners
<TomB> Today's telecon is #30 - we have a maximum of 13 remaining
<kcoyle> yes, tomB that's the issue
kcoyle: next week we should set ourselves to make deadlines
<emma> Next week : give some milestones for the report
ADJOURNED
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Antoine and jeff_ to make a proposal to the group
about vocabularies and datasets [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action08]
[NEW] 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]
[NEW] ACTION: emma and ed to start curating a section on benefits of
LLD for libraries [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: emma, TomB, and antoine to send a call for finding an
owner of the UC deliverable [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action07]
[26]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_d
ata
[27]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html
#action03
[PENDING] ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email
message in the next week re brainstorming on important issues
[recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minu
tes.html#action08]
[30]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html
#action08
[DROPPED] ACTION: As a future topic for a conference call, 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]
[31]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_d
ata
[32]
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html
#action03
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [33]scribe.perl version 1.135
([34]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/02/24 20:38:56 $
[33]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[34] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
**** Bitte beachten Sie die neue Internet- und E-Mail-Adresse. ****
**** Please note my new internet- and email-address. ****
--
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik http://www.dnb.de/
l.svensson@dnb.de
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 07:56:04 UTC