See also: IRC log
<antoine> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/20-lld-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes (after clean up) at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/20-lld-minutes.html
<TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0148.html
TomB: Posted a message to the
list with a draft outline of the final report.
... propose that we go through the draft as listed in the
e-mail.
... walk through the outline of the final report to see how the
pieces of the wiki documents fit into the outline
... for all of the documents ask if the document has served its
purpose -- should it be dropped, integrated into the draft
report, used as a separate deliverable, or kept as is.
... when we decide something should be integrated into the
draft, if we have sections of text that are done, that we
should move them into the draft report
... we can discuss if that is the best way to do it as the
report gets longer.
... when we start to put things into the final report that we
assign people to review different sections.
... until now we have had curators present their work. it would
be helpful to read each others sections to bring in new
perspectives and reviewing from different standpoints.
... hopefully we will all be familiar with the contents of the
report in the end.
... suggest that we start with the e-mail at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0148.html
... use clusters as the basis of the "state of the art"
section
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest to review the main sections of the draft report
emma: Suggest that we start reviewing the main sections of the report to make sure we agree with them
TomB: Suggests focusing on what
we have and then come back to the outline to see what needs to
be put in.
... seeking updates on the clusters.
emma: Archives cluster: Nothing further on the
Archives cluster. Work is almost done.
... keeping the action open to remember to review it one last
time.
GordonD: Bibliographic cluster: is finished. Minor adjustments due to the late use cases.
edsu: Citations cluster: Kai had some ideas for taking it further to make things better, but unsure how far he intends to go.
GordonD: Collections cluster: done in a week or two.
markva: Digital Objects: still finishing up. Needs help with some of the use case shepherds for suggesting things.
uldis: Social Uses: deadline is Feb 15th to receive suggested use cases.
antoine: Vocabulary alignment:
still not finished. Most of the work is editorial. Have decided
on a way to distribute the work yesterday.
... Have something on the middle of next week or
the week after that.
TomB: We have lots of wiki pages
that might be integrated into the final
report or delivered as separate documents
... any thoughts on how the vocabularies page might be
developed into a section of the final report?
<markva> which one, two called "vocabulary"
<Asaf> I think a list of Vocabs would not be as useful as specific recommendations in the context of specific scenarios.
emma: include the defitintions
that we have created
... vocabularies section was thought to list the vocabularies
that we find we are using
...
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained
... list of vocabularies included in the use cases is a long
list
<marcia> or put them in an appendix
emma: use the definitions to say that there are these types and include examples
<markva> +1 asaf, emma
emma: for the report
TomB: Need a placeholder in the report that points to the vocabularies page
<GordonD> +1 marcia - put snapshot list of vocabularies in use in an appendix?
TomB: as we get further along, we need owners for sections so we can have a crack at making stylistic decisions of when do we have lists, when do we cut material, do we put lists in appendices, putting text in the main report
antoine: suggests putting a snapshot of the vocabularies list in the appendix
TomB: suggests that where we have
lists of things that we put effort into compiling those lists
for the report
... if we decide the appendix is not useful, we can cut it
<GordonD> Big question: who are we writing the report for? Knowledgeable parties? W3C? Librarians who are curious?
<Asaf> Very big question. :)
<emma> @GordonD : for "the community" ?
<marcia> good question
antoine: A bit of a mixture of all of these people.
TomB: Another group is decision-makers in the library world. What direction to go in, where to invest resources, that sort of thing.
<Asaf> I think the _obvious_ audience is high-level deciders about library technology. Those vary between orgs.
<GordonD> Decision-makers need the snapshot!
<Asaf> (but also: implementers or would-be implementers of any kind of library-related LOD project)
antoine: All of this discussion on the audience may point that we need a short report that is an entry point to other things.
<Asaf> Yes! Concise is good!
<GordonD> +1 for concision
<markva> +1
antoine: what we currently see as the report focus on motivation, view of vocabularies
<michaelp> Usually, a report would have an "executive summary" or 1 or 2 pages for decision makers.
<markva> Do we need some introduction / reading guide?
<markva> To guide the diff type of readers?
<marcia> +michaelp for executive summary
<markva> +1 michaelp
emma: Start by putting everything in one big draft and see what can then be extracted elsewhere
<GordonD> One big draft that can be output in different forms for different audiences is a good idea!
<marcia> +1
<markva> need to identify the diff outputs then, sep wiki pages
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to include executive summary placeholder in report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action01]
emma: Continuing where TomB left
off, the next entry in the draft report is the http://ckan.net/group/lld
... TomB suggests in his e-mail summarizing this as section 3.2
of the report
edsu: Does anyone know if very many library data sets have been tagged in CKAN?
emma: Current state has 18 packages.
antoine: Tagged 10 of them himself. Need to be mindful of registering other vocabularies
<edsu> nice :-)
<GordonD> I will recommend to IFLA that the CKAN stuff is kept up to date for IFLA vocabularies, etc.
<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals
emma: Next page is the page of goals. Not sure we need to keep it in the report as it was an aid for creating use cases.
markva: Doesn't think the page itself contains much text that would be useful in the report. It was useful to create coherent text of the use cases. Maybe could use the ideas someplace in the report, but no concrete suggestions.
emma: Idea was to have common idea between the clusters to extract for the use case clusters.
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to discuss an "exec summary" on UCs?
antoine: the page could be a good
list of reminders for introducing the section on use cases. an
executive summary style of what linked data would do in terms
of applications.
... one sentence that digested the ideas.
... we could have something in the same spirit to make
relationships and exploit them.
<GordonD> +1 for folding Goals into Exec summary/overview of use cases
<scribe> ACTION: emma to put the Goals page content at the beginning of the use case section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action02]
<kefo> apologies - weather delay
<emma> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained
emma: Next page is library
terminology informally explained
... terms that are relevant to library and linked data
world.
... include in the final report as a link? Notes that it is on
the community wiki, not the group wiki.
<kcoyle> i think that was for our use
<GordonD> +1 include as link/appendix
kcoyle: Suggests that the purpose was so that we could communicate among ourselves, and not for the final report.
<antoine> I think there should be a freezed version
emma: Only include the vocabulary part in the final report.
<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
emma: Gordon's review library standards of linked data
<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_Data_Resources
emma: and this other page. There is overlap between the two.
<kcoyle> this could be an appendix
emma: the page that GordonD
created is interesting. At the face-to-face meeting we talked
about including it in the report. Maybe in the vocabulary
section.
... the second page was intended as the internal work of the
group.
<markva> overview of library standards really useful for semweb readers
GordonD: The overlap between the
two is only in the first half of the library standards and
linked data page.
... the page is deliberately in two parts. Sections 1-4 should
be conflated with the library data resources page.
... the second half was intended as a stimulous for discussion
by the group, but didn't have that effect.
... it might stimulate further discussion beyond the life of
the final report.
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to comment on splitting the page?
antoine: could we split GordonD's page?
GordonD: No objections to
splitting the page. It would be valuble to integrate the first
part.
... would like for this group to have at least one session
discussing the open questions in the second half of the
page.
<markva> seems to overlap with Problems and Limitations stuff
<scribe> ACTION: As a future topic for a conference call, discuss the open questions in the second half of http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action03]
<scribe> ACTION: GordonD to split http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data and make recommendations on where to integrate into the final report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action04]
<antoine> @markva: yes, there is overlap! Gordon's page elaborates on some of the limitations.
<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed
emma: We had the idea to work on
this with wiki transclusion
... we probably have some of these topics in the draft report
already
... the summary of the face to face is almost more relevant
than this page
<markva> @antoine: but see no place in report where prob & lim stuff should go?
<kcoyle> needs to be in there
<markva> yes
<kcoyle> that's probably what we most want to incubate around (sorry, lost phone, will just chat)
<markva> +1 need new sec
emma: create a new section in the report on problems and limitations?
<marcia> +1 some generalized ones
scribe: then we can go further with the recommendations
<kcoyle> should be 1.4; before recommendations
<scribe> ACTION: emma to add a 1.4 section (before recommendations) on problems and limitations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action05]
<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Granularity_of_library_metadata
GordonD: page is still under
discussion with jodi and kcoyle
... what the page is intending to publish is quite
imporant
... where it is heading is towards mixed granularity approach
for libraries, with implications as to whether LLD helps
... perhaps this belongs in the problems/limitation section as
a general environmental issue that might lead to
problems/limitations
... suggests continue working on the page to include in this
new problems/limitations section
<kcoyle> +1
GordonD: GordonD will come up with a suggestion on how to integrate it.
<edsu> +1 seems like a good thing to include in the report
<TomB> +1