- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 22:44:31 +0200
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Hi everyone,
The minutes of our call today are at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html
A text version follows.
Thanks to Ed for scribing!
Best,
Antoine
======
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
LLD XG
05 May 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0007.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-lld-irc
Attendees
Present
antoine, kcoyle, edsu, monica, emma, AlexanderH, michaelp,
uldis, jeff_, [IPcaller], Felix, Tom_Baker, GordonD, +jodi,
kefo, dvilasuero
Regrets
Ray, Ross, Joachim, Marcia, Lars, Peter, Kim, Kai
Chair
Antoine
Scribe
Ed
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Admin
2. [6]Final Report Draft
3. [7]Recommendations
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<antoine> Previous:
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0064.ht
ml
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0064.html
<uldis> hi
<antoine> Scribe: Ed
<antoine> Scribenick: edsu
<pmurray> Unexpected regrets for today. Last minute family doctor's
appt.
Admin
RESOLVED To accept
[10]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/21-lld-minu
tes.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/21-lld-minutes.html
RESOLVED
[11]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/28-lld-minu
tes.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/28-lld-minutes.html
antoine: we have a few reasons for wanting a charter extension
... we believe some more time would get us some time for a wider set
of readers outside of this group, on the public discussion list and
the lod-lam summit
antoine: we also will have harry halpin talking about w3c community
groups next week, and would like some more time to think about and
discuss this and other options
... is everyone ok with that, any objections?
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0006.h
tml
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0006.html
<jodi> reviewing_time++
<GordonD> +1 for charter extension
<uldis> +1
<michaelp> +1 for extension
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about telecons
<dvilasuero> +1 for charter extension (having problems with my ip
caller)
<TomB> +1 for extension
emma: are we going to maintain the weekly teleconferences during the
summer?
<TomB> +1 one call every two weeks
antoine: perhaps one call every two weeks would be more than enough
<GordonD> +1 for call every two weeks
antoine: we don't need to meet every week for the continuation of
the work
emma: i agree, that would be good
antoine: if we don't get any serious objection on the list in the
next 2 or 3 days, i think tom, emma and myself will ask for the
extension
<dvilasuero> +1 for bi-weekly calls
antoine: the current teleconf schedule ends in may, we will be
working on that
Final Report Draft
antoine: the benefits section, a little report?
<antoine> ed: no progress since last call
<antoine> ... Tom has put content
<antoine> ... it's largely there
<emma> [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits
[13] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits
antoine: feel free to send an email to get some reviewers
kcoyle: we discussed the benefits at one of the recommendation calls
... the globally unique identifiers needs to be more specific for
libraries
<TomB>
[14]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits#.22Library_Li
nked_Data.22:_Scope_of_this_report
[14] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits#.22Library_Linked_Data.22:_Scope_of_this_report
kcoyle: not general benefits
<emma> I can give it a try maybe
<jodi> Thanks Emma!
<antoine> kcoyle: we need someone from the benefits section to help
us
<jodi> oops
kcoyle: needs to be specific to those institutions
<jodi> thanks emma!
[15]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits
[15] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits
<antoine> edsu: ross come with a paragraph
<antoine> kcoyle: that's what I'm looking for
<antoine> edsu: there's a bit in the benefits for researchers,
patrons etc.
<antoine> ... that talks about the benefits of making data more
available
<antoine> .. is that it?
<antoine> kcoyle: we want to emphasize the benefits for libraries
<TomB> [[
<TomB> Tom: The Issues/Recommendations group thinks this section may
be too general and that points in this section could be reworded to
emphasize the benefits for Libraries and Library Data: greater
visibility for library data, and re-use of library data. The more
data is re-used, the more value it has. And libraries able to
provide services - e.g., researchers add citations into their
papers...
<TomB> ...directly from library. Libraries need to be more visible
in order to justify.
<TomB> ]]
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that the Scope section has
been penciled in but needs to be written
<kcoyle> def. of lib (DRAFT) Library in this report refers to an
agent which administers a collection of information resources
curated for a designated community and provides services around
those resources. Collections may be public or private, large or
small, and are not limited to any particular types of resources.
Collection and preservation of resources are key functions of
libraries that are...
<kcoyle> ...not shared widely in the information space and therefore
are given particular attention.
<antoine> edsu: there is sentence on the scope in the benefits:
works, persons, concepts
<antoine> ... can't it answer what is library LD?
<emma> TomB: it's more about the motivations of libraries as
intitutions
TomB: greater visibility, more reused the more valuable, etc
... libraries increasing their relevance
<jodi> Tom made my point: focusing on the *why* for libraries -- the
benefits from the perspective of a library organization
<emma> TomB: better services for data, facilitating reuse of data,
increasing visibility & relevance, that sort of things
TomB: pitching things so that decision makers will understand it
<emma> kcoyle: target library managers
<jodi> hopefully we'll get a library director or two to read this
section during our review period to get some feedback
antoine: maybe the owners of the document can use these comments to
revise the document for next week
<emma> ok for me
<emma> good idea, Jodi, +1 !
antoine: next we are to talk about problems and limitations
<scribe> ACTION: Gordon and Karen to consider relation between
problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page.
[recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minu
tes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]
[16] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01
antoine: next, we'll talk about relevant technologies
[17]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technol
ogies
... also kevin had something to say about library linked data web
services
[17] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
<kefo>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011May/0027.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011May/0027.html
kefo: joachim contacted me, and we were thinking of trimming our
section and integrating it into the relevant technologies
... if someone wants to do that it would be fine by me
antoine: thanks kevin, i think that's a good idea
... jeff is that ok?
jeff_: yes, sounds great
antoine: i think
[19]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technol
ogies is ready to be reviewed
... pretty close to claim victory on it, once kevin's stuff is added
... jeff you could send an email to the group list asking for
reviewers
... there hasn't been any progress since the last teleconference on
the vocabularies and datasets section
[20]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
... daniel do you have an update on the use case deliverable?
[19] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
[20] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
dvilasuero: i have about 1/2 of the report finished, and plan to
update on the wiki and will send an email to the group
... i could use some help with some of the use cases, some of them
could use some refinement, is it ok to email the owners?
antoine: yes
... you should be able to get the help from cluster owners
Recommendations
[21]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_
page
[21] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page
antoine: first of all, congratulations on doing what you have done
so far on the public list!
kcoyle++
<kcoyle>
[22]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendat
ions_page
[22] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendations_page
kcoyle: based on comments we re-organized it around actions
... we did this mainly on the talk page:
[23]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendat
ions_page
... we start out w/ an assess action, what datasets one might choose
to convert first, or use first in a linked data type environment
... which is followed by planning, different paths one can take,
having a discussion about data & rights
... the names of these things can change as much as you like
... then we have facilitate, to get across the idea of innovation,
literacy, education
... then design, where we do modeling ; prepare, for best practices
; collaborate for getting involved in the community ; and finally
curate
... helps get a better vision in terms of recommendations
... if there are actions that aren't in here, we'll need to add them
in ... did we get everything that people care about?
[23] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendations_page
emma: i'm wondering if this new organization of recommendations has
the same purpose as the previous one ; is the purpose different?
<antoine> +1
emma: maybe you could indicate who typically cares about these
actions, for people to understand easier
kcoyle: we're still trying to come up with a way to think about this
to make sure we have everything in it, but the final version will
indicate who the stakeholders are
... we need to think about who we are addressing at various points
in the report
antoine: i think this problem of targeting the specific audience
would be more relevant for your section ... i think i like it, but
it seems like a business plan, if there was a way to flag the
specific actions as for particular people
kcoyle: what we had before, our high levels weren't very evocative
... maybe with this new division we can see if it helps us identify
the stakeholders
... what stakeholders do we want to be addressing here?
... i think we want management
antoine: also catalogers
<emma> developpers
<emma> standard creators
<emma> cataloguers
kcoyle: we want to include everybody, but if we have to divide up
the page by stakeholders, we need some number of stakeholders
<emma> +1 Antoine : for each recommendation, give an idea of who
we're adressing
kcoyle: maybe for each action we could say who we are addressing
... even if it is only for us
<TomB> +1 to address each recommendation to a specific target
audience(s)
kcoyle: there will be activities that need to be addressed by more
than one stakeholder
... we haven't used this to redesign the whole page yet, we were
waiting for this discussion
antoine: maybe we can see the discussion
<emma> +1 for redesigning
<antoine> edsu: I like the focus on actions
<antoine> ... providing more on who to take the action is useful
<antoine> ... but as such it's good for the management level
<TomB> Ed: likes it alot. Likes focus on action. Agree with Antoine,
Emma - who we want to take the action. Alot of these seem business-y
- good for mgt people, but speaking as a developer, if I could point
to this "want to collaborate more" - would be useful.
<GordonD> stakeholder category "cataloguer" is better expressed as
"data manager" (for archives, museums, etc.)
<TomB> ...sometimes people are left wondering what they can do to
help.
<jodi> +1 for moral support
<TomB> Karen: Part about "collaborating" - "moral support" for
people who want to work in this area.
antoine: anyone have any more comments?
<GordonD> stakeholder categories might be: service managers (senior
management); data managers; technical developers; standards
developers; educators
kcoyle: we need to look through this to make sure there isn't
anything that's like a bomb
<jodi> +1 to asking reviewers about unintended misreadings that are
possible
emma: i think it's great to discuss the recommendations one by one
on the list, i think we should go on with it
kcoyle: i've been trying to do them in logical chunks, and continue
to try to do that
antoine: i had a question about vocabulary alignment, is there
something there in the recommendations?
... some guidance on helping align library data with outside data
sets
<GordonD> Section 1.3.5
antoine: we have aligning library data with externally produced data
... but that was the idea that we didn't want libraries creating yet
another silo
kcoyle: in terms of alignment between libraries, i think we to
describe that carefully, that it doesn't take the place of aligning
with outside institutions
... in the discussion about URIs, people seemed to be agreeing but
saying the opposite thing
... when we say the word "resources" they'll think about the
metadata for the stuff they own
... if you say libraries have to create uris for resoruces, we have
this big gap, since we have shared authority files ... but we have
all the bibliographic data, which we don't have identifiers for
... there seems to be a different situation between the authority
files and the bibliographic data
antoine: the recommendation would still promote the coining uris at
whatever level is appropriate
jeff_: i assume that all of these things have internal identifiers,
you can take those identifiers and slap http on the front of them,
those are the things that deserve to be http identifiers
<jeff_> +1
kcoyle: we can recommend people to use the internal identifiers when
creeating URIs
... my fear is that if we have two different things to say about
these things
<jodi> thanks!
<kefo> bye
<dvilasuero> thanks!
antoine: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[CONTINUES] ACTION: 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]
[24] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [25]scribe.perl version 1.135
([26]CVS log)
$Date: 2011/05/10 20:40:54 $
[25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 20:42:59 UTC