- From: Ford, Kevin <kefo@loc.gov>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:40:48 -0400
- To: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
The minutes from last Thursday's telecon are available at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html
I've also pasted a text version below.
All the best,
Kevin
====
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
LLD XG
24 Mar 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0072.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/03/24-lld-irc
Attendees
Present
antoine, kefo, marcia, jeff_, rsinger, uldis, kai, GordonD,
edsu, ww, kcoyle, monica, ray, jneubert, michaelp
Regrets
Asaf, Daniel, Peter, Jodi, Ross, Alexander, Lars, Felix
Chair
Antoine
Scribe
kevin
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]Final Report Draft
3. [7]USE CASE CLUSTERS
4. [8]PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS / ISSUES - SECTION IN REPORT
* [9]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<antoine> Previous: 2011-03-17
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0069.h
tml
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0069.html
<antoine> Scribe: kevin
<antoine> Scribenick: kefo
Admin
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes:
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
tes.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html
Final Report Draft
Antoine: Gordon's page a complete description of standards.
Wondering where it might fit?
... Anyone have comments about this?
... It is the library data resources page.
<GordonD> Note that it's not entirely "my" page - it is a conflation
of two earlier pieces, one of which was mine
kcoyle: Could go with vocabularies, but we don't have a general
description about where things are in the library world and this
kind of communicates this.
Antoine: This is mostly vocab related.
kcoyle: It has MARC, AACR, RDA....
Antoine: Perhaps a library resource data page?
kcoyle: This is not particular to any single issue, but a general
overview.
GordonD: I see this page now as a type of snapshot of what is going
on. Will this page be maintained after the life of the group?
... It would be useful to have a page that keeps everyone informed,
providing a general page for library standards./
Antoine: It certainly has details that need to be in the final
report.
... GordonD, do you believe it is ready for publication, as a type
of deliverable.
GordonD: Yes, but could change tomorrow. Perhaps the derliverable is
a Wiki page that could be maintained, so there is always a current
place to go for info.
Antoine: Perhaps move this page to the community-oriented wiki for
community editing and management.
... We could make a snapshot as a deliverable, but with ample note
that it is a snapshot and changing.
GordonD: I'm happy to monitor this page and revisit this just before
the final report is published.
kcoyle: Have we talked about who our audience is for the
deliverable? How much knowledge of library data are we assuming on
the part of the readers?
Antoine: I think we determined that the audience is extremely
varied. Not everyone will be aware of the complexities of the
library domain.
kcoryle: Then we will likely need an explanatory section./
... There are some points we will need to make. A section that
includes the key points.
... Those that are most relevant to our tasks; contextualization for
the rest of the report.
Antoine: Could this be treated in the problems and limitations
section? It discusses some of the issues regarding complexity.
kcoyle: Something to think about. Could we position the issues page
to frame this issue.
GordonD: We came to an opposite decision earlier. My contribution
came from the library standards page, part of which was merged into
the problems and limitations page.
<marcia> +1
GordonD: I like the idea of a glossary, info page. And we can have a
paragraph in the final report that would direct interested readers
to a page with fgar more depth intothis issue.
<scribe> ACTION: For Gordon and Karen to consider relation between
problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page.
[recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
<marcia> It is more like the 'Status of This Document' in W3C docs
such as SKOS
Antoine: Ed, Emma - How is the action - to start curating a section
of benefits of LLD for libraries - coming along?
edsu: Can't make next week's telecon, so won't be able to discuss
then.
Ross: I can discuss. Emmanuelle has started something. Should be
ready for next week. Definitely the bullet points. I can present:
<scribe> ACTION: edsu, rsinger, emma to create a few bullet points
on the benefits of linked data in libraries for the call on March
31st [CONTINUES] [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action01
<edsu> rsinger++
<rsinger> save your karma until after i actually do something :)
Antoine: New member, Daniel Vila Suero. He will own the Use Case
document(s).
... Available data (vocabularies, datasets), on going.
... Jeff published page for tools, any comments?
... Requirements and contributions section. Guenther offered, but
was concerned about how much time he would be able to commit to
this.
... There was some discussion about someone lending Guenther some
assistance. Anyone interested?
USE CASE CLUSTERS
Antoine: Jodi and Uldis, status report?
<uldis>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Social_Uses
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Social_Uses
Uldis: We've gathered some info and use cases. These are here:
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Social_Uses
... Jodi and I haven't had the time in the last couple of weeks.
Can't say something definitive about the time frame, but we hope to
have something for the group in the next two weeks.
... We have good information, but if anyone would like to take a
second look, or add a little, there is time.
... Lastly, assuming we'll have a cluster report for social uses, it
would be appropriate to have that too in the draft report.
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Social_Uses
<uldis>
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport#Use_cases_
and_requirements
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport#Use_cases_and_requirements
Antoine: It should be mentioned in the final report and the side
deliverable.
... Feel free to add something to the draft report.
<scribe> ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
[recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03]
[17] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03
<scribe> --continues
PROBLEMS / LIMITATIONS / ISSUES - SECTION IN REPORT
kcoyle: Three main things happened this week. We worked in the issue
of redundancy. We added some questions (ones about terminology,
others about whether we should have a separate section on library
data).
... In each section, we have info about library data. So there is
some redundancy.
... Throughout there are questions that relate directly to library
data. Perhaps we should pull this information out as its own issue.
Should we try to do that and then let people weigh in?
<uldis>
[18]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
[18] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page
kcoyle: There are neatly defined problems and limitations, and
various issues that find a natural home in an existing section. But
the redundancy issue, for example, doesn't quite fit in any of the
existing sections. And, because it keeps coming up, perhaps it
should have its own section.
... for example, in the second to last paragraph, we trying to talk
about the current library data model and its relation to the linked
data data model.
Antoine: Does this relate to list discussion about constraints?
kcoyle: Some issues are current and present issues. But then there
are others that have more to do with *future* library work.
GordonD: I think we're confalting 2 or 3 things here. There is an
issue with legacy library data. But there is another issue that
revolves around syncing legacy library data to newer models.
... Newer models havea better chance of integrating Linked Data
ideas.
<ww> GordonD: agree it is a generic problem
kcoyle: I still have the question about the issue about having
existing library data moving to new model. Are we saying the same
thing when we use "data model" in these cases?
... Gordon's proposed an alternate wording for this.
GordonD: Some of the wording makes assumptions that are not
explicitly said.
... We can say that there are problems with legacy data. But we
don't have to say that legacy models are negatively impacting moving
to linked data model.
Antoine: What about the role of catalogers?
GordonD: This is an important point. But, we have to focus on
presenting information in one specific way which will necessarily
scatter other necesssary messages around the document.
... I think there is a key message about legacy library data and I
think there is a key message to be made for linked data helping the
future.
kcoyle: There is a great focus on FRBR and that it is the road to
linked data for libraries. Do we want to say something in favor or
against this.
<rsinger> ...in all cases
<rsinger> (let's clarify)
ww: I think the important point is the one Dan Brickley made. You
don't have to talk about FRBR, but the model of data.
<marcia> treat as ONE of the options
kcoyle: So what do we say instead?
Antoine: Marcia has proposed ot treat FRBR as ONE of the options,
which seems fair.
kcoyle: In that case, that supports Gordon'
... Gordon's alternate wording.
<ww> kefo: to rephrase: might not be the best strategy to
mechanically translate WEMI to RDF classes
jeff_: I think the FRBR classifications are less important than the
relationships.
edsu: It would be hard to envision a report that didn't mention
FRBR, but endorsing it as *the* model for library data might not be
wise. Fine to talk about it as a conceptual model that has found its
way into other vocabularies and has found its supporters.
<marcia> or say 'emerging'
<GordonD> +1 identifiers are the key (forgive pun)
ross: I think one way to de-emphasize one model or another is to
focus on identifiers.
kcoyle: Right, emphasize identifiers and RDF.
ross: FRBR can be mentioned, and other bibliographic models, but
what matters more are the identifiers (model matters too). But, once
we have identifiers, we have the flexibility to describe them.
<GordonD> Identifiers = authority control (kind of), and this
bridges lld pov with library pov
<rsinger> GordonD: agreed
<edsu> :-)
<ww> 1+ to emphasis on identifiers
kcoyle: I think the next step is to look at recommendations.
<edsu> rsinger: yeah, i liked that too
kcoyle: We've started to add recommendations as bullet points. If
others want to add to this work, please do. Then we can start
turning this into text.
<ww> keep the field open for different conceptual and organisational
models grounded in the identifiers
kcoyle: For every issue, we should have at least one recommendation.
What do we want to do with the issues?
... The issues are imporant, but our recommendations are the real
contribution here.
... We can set up a page, ask others, and recommend people discuss
it on the list.
<GordonD> +1 put the recommendations up for public lld discussion
<GordonD> I think we may get some surprising feedback
<marcia> +1
<scribe> ACTION: Karen to request feedback from community on
recommendations [recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
Antoine: There was an action for all to look at the use cases and
report back.
kcoyle: We did not get a lot of feedback, but I think we're all on
the same page. So, I'm not concerned
<scribe> ACTION: everyone to take a look at the issues and make sure
that points from the use cases are represented in the document
[DONE] [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action04
<GordonD> We're in a feedback loop until closer to the final report
- so further feedback on problems and limitations is welcome
<kai> Sorry, I have to leave timely today. Bye everyone.
<antoine>
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
Antoine: next action. Discussion of open questions about library
standards and linked data
GordonD: I think we can close that action.
<scribe> ACTION: As a future topic for March 10, discuss the open
questions in the second half of
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data [DONE] [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action03]
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action03
Antoine: Any additional business? Comments?
<rsinger> great moderating :)
<marcia> :-)
Antoine: OK, we'll adjourn the meeting. Thanks all. See you next
week.
<marcia> thanks
<ww> bye all
<rsinger> bye
[adjourned]
<digikim> hmm...
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: For 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-minu
tes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Karen to request feedback from community on
recommendations [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: edsu, rsinger, emma to create a few bullet points
on the benefits of linked data in libraries for the call on March
31st [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
tes.html#action01]
[PENDING] ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03]
[26] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action01
[27] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03
[DONE] ACTION: As a future topic for March 10, discuss the open
questions in the second half of
[28]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_
linked_data [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minu
tes.html#action03]
[DONE] ACTION: everyone to take a look at the issues and make sure
that points from the use cases are represented in the document
[recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minu
tes.html#action04]
[28] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
[29] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action03
[30] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action04
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [31]scribe.perl version 1.135
([32]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/03/28 16:31:27 $
[31] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 28 March 2011 18:41:22 UTC