See also: IRC log
<emma> Scribe: Monica
<emma> scribenick: monica
PROPOSED: To accept minutes of previous telecon: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/11/18-lld-minutes.html
Emma: Outline of the report
...some participants have asked for outline of report
...this is very early draft in early stages everyone welcome to comment
...usecases and requirements extracted from UC will be in section of report
... we need to figure out what it will look like
\me too much keyboard noise
<markva> I hear someone typing; cannot hear discussion well
... next report section - available data
<markva> question about terminology
... 'vocabulary' a loaded term
... element sets proposed for things like FRBR
... is this the time to make the decision
<AlexanderH> +1 value vocabularies
<antoine> at least in the report what is aimed is "metadata element set"
... limited number of people joined in the discussion
<antoine> ... in section "vocabularies"
... what is the process for coming to a decision?
<marcia> FRBR is a conceptual model
... discussion seems to be spread across multiple threads
<jodi> Re: AW: SemWeb terminology page is one of the other threads
<kcoyle> there is also a frbr ontology that has been defined in a number of formats
emma: placeholder in report for terminology
<kcoyle> there is frbroo, frbrer, and frbr core
<marcia> conceptual model and data model should be differently identified
emma: sees discussion on irc invites contributions
marcia: conceptual models are
models, implementations are different
... original FRBR is still conceptual model
<kcoyle> they are -- they have been defined in rdf
emma: once in RDF would they be vocabularies?
<markva> +1 Alexander
AlexanderH: discussion is more about separation between value vocabularies and element sets
<GordonD> Vocabularies derived from conceptual models can be used in same way as those derived from data models - just expect conceptual models to be broader or less detailed
<kcoyle> yes, that is the discussion
antoine: the report should only mention conceptual models through their implementation as metadata vocabularies ?
<AlexanderH> but there are properties that don't derive from models i.e. FOAF
<markva> there is an implicit model in docs of FOAF
emma: agrees with AlexanderH
<markva> I think model/implementation discussion not relevant here
AlexanderH: make distinction that conceptual models are models and have been implemented
emma: not make decision now but
on mailing list
... back to outline of report
<danbri> there certainly was some thinking behind the FOAF design; it wasn't arbitrary, although it evolved bit by bit. But FOAF isn't an RDFification of some pre-existing, written down 'model'...
emma: next section
... tried to organise outcomes of F2F mtg into sections
... again very early draft to give idea of how to organise report, non-definitive
... everybody please look at report outline
<GordonD> Why say "LLdata should be produced using the FR's as domain model."? There are other domain models, eg ISBD ...
<markva> is an action?
emma: we need feedback on early
draft to move forward
... any comments?
<antoine> @GordonD: good point to make in your future remarks on the outline :-)
<markva> sounds good
emma: feedback welcome on list discuss further on future call
emma: invites comments from cluster owners
markv: no further progress to
... emails suggested scenarios need to be extracted
emma: idea is to suggest how it
could look like in report
... how to tranform use cases into something readable for report
<GordonD> Gordon and Martin yet to start on their cluster - but expect to make good progress after we get started ;-)
mark: no time to look at that yet
<antoine> idea of abstract scenarios was also mentioned in previous calls here
markva: is this agreed? what is the status?
emma: not decided mentioned on
... need feedback from clusters if it is a good idea
<GordonD> +1 for abstraction
markva: agrees it is a good idea to give more abstraction
<antoine> +1 with abstracting
emma: in archive cluster we have started to look at this and work in that direction
<markva> hard time hearing
<kcoyle> we have new goals; we need to decide whether to add them to the goals page
<kcoyle> or to create a new page, or a new section on that page
emma: we tried to make goals fit
ones from mark's cluster, but they were quite different
... we need to add new goals to the page
<antoine> +1 with that process!
emma: more description for goals
... any other feedback?
<markva> yep, hard to define goals clearly, generic and specific at same time
monica: my colleagues at JISC
couldn't make it for today
... but they're happy to discuss on the public list
... what is the interest of the group here?
... how JISC gathers information? Something else?
... this will help identify who would come and talk about the JISC work
<jodi> for me the interest is how they gathered the use cases
emma: interest in on UCs they gathered on the web site
<jodi> and whether they have any suggestions for comparing our use cases to theirs
<jodi> (I'd like to make sure we don't have systematic bias in how we've come up with them, by doing them the same way.)
monica: ok, I'll see if owen stephens can answers questions
monica: easier however if discussion start on list for better scoping
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to ask Monica to lead discussion about JISC use cases at http://obd.jisc.ac.uk/navigate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-lld-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Monica and JISC colleagues to introduce and discuss JISC work on next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action02]
<antoine> ACTION: William: to summarize options for using CKAN to the list, before next concall [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/11-lld-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
...for people to curate group people need to login to CKAN
...inform ww and kcoyle about their openID
... could we all do this?
<jodi> I'm interested, need to login, etc. :)
<Asaf> long-term, maybe. Right now, quite over-committed.
emma: volunteers to curate
... jodi, antoine
<scribe> ACTION: volunteers to send login information to william waite to curate CKAN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action04]
TOPIC UPCOMING FACE-TO-FACE MEETING AT SWIB10 IN COLOGNE
antoine: in ww's mail there was a proposed strategy
relation between bibliographic and LOD group
emma: idea is to create an LLD
... was there feedback on the list?
ww: there was a question about
relationship between LOD and LODCloud
... LODCloud has more requirements e.g. quality
... quality checked manually
... that was extent of questions
anotoine: no objection to
... propose to resolve to follow strategy as suggested by ww
RESOLVE: follow strategy of creating LLD group for CKAN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0107.html
emma: agenda has been sent
antoine: an informal
... entire group copied for information
... have informal discussion, continue discussion from last weeks
... first topic use case clusters
scribe: would people be interested in remote participation?
emma: is it possible to provide remote participation facility?
<markva> background noise?
<markva> ppl talking
emma: who is interested is it worth doing?
antoine: annette is not
... is it worth to make the effort to find the phone
emma: irc implies need to scribe which is more complicated than summarising the call
jneubert: there is a chance to have microphone on the phone will let XG know
emma: who else would like to
attend on irc or phone?
... not alot of interest
antoine: not the intention to
force people to participate
... but anyone wanting to join is welcome but keep it simple
emma: any other business
<Asaf> Has any of you been in touch with the Interedition group?
<Asaf> I just got back from an Interedition meeting in Pisa.
<Asaf> They are not too aware of linked data.
<Asaf> I tried to get them interested.
<Asaf> (still a bit noisy here)
<Asaf> (probably better to type_)
<Asaf> So they're doing digital editions of manuscripts. I'll add something about it on the wiki, yes.
<ww> thanks everyone