See also: IRC log
<antoine> Previous: 2011-01-27 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Jan/0160.html
<scribe> scribe: felix
<antoine> Scribenick: fsasaki
<antoine> PROPOSED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: previous minutes accepted
action on Antoine to include executive summary placeholder in report - has been done
<TomB> 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] [DONE]
<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] [DONE]
emma: it is only a draft, would be great if everybody could review that piece of text
emma: not sure if it captures the essence of the use case
antoine: we can check it later, the action is clearly done, thanks a lot
<antoine> 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] [DONE]
<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] [DONE]
emma: only edited the section with a few links, we have to discuss what we want to put in here
antoine: thanks, we will discuss that later
... now about "Fate of library standards and issues pages"
<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] [DONE]
<kcoyle> link to page?
<TomB> Gordon, do you mean http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport#Datasets ?
<GordonD> Library Data Resources - needs a placeholder in Final report, in Available data section.
<GordonD> Library standards and linked data, following discussion at future telecon, probably fits the Problems and limitations section of the Final report.
(above and below are gordon's suggestions for reorganising the material)
<TomB> +1 sounds good Gordon
karen: we gathered a lot of data
<GordonD> Final note for the record: the Granularities page is now incorporated in the Library standards and linked data page.
karen: I would like to see our report to be an analysis of
what we gathered
... we seem to be ending up with a list of information
... we should discuss how we end of with the analysis from that list
... we don't know how all of those standards, librarry data structure
... fits in into linked data
<TomB> +1 lists will get stale quickly - emphasizing analysis is good
karen: we have no answer, but a question
... we gathered some data for beginning
... we need to say: here is a beginning of a task that needs to happen
... i.e. how to go from library data to linked data
<emma> +1, karen !
antoine: sounds good
karen: somebody has to write that analysis part
antoine: couldn't that be for many of these sections?
karen: that is true for every section
antoine: agree, people should volunteer for curating these sections
<jodi> +1 to writers and reviewers
<jodi> +1 to appendices also
karen: some things which are in the report will end up to be appendicies with long lists of things
<TomB> +1 to pushing things into appendices
<GordonD> +1 for all these suggestions
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that we have writers -- and _reviewers_
tom: completely agree with karen
... in addition to writers we need reviewers
<jodi> also the better (more complete, more readable, ...) each section will get, from review
tom: the more we read the entire report the more we will understand the coherence of the report
tom: we are going to need to iterate through all of these
sections for a few times
... we need to get the authors themselves involved in thinking about what a section is trying to do, how well it is communicated, what is needed to be done
antoine: above comments in the minutes makes a lot of
sense for everyone
... should we record an action or resolution?
tom: no need for a resolution
... creating the agenda (of calls) we should look for reviewers
antoine: ok, let's discuss that in upcoming calls
<scribe> ACTION: gordon to update the draft report structure with suggestions he made concerning the wiki pages [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/03-lld-minutes.html#action06]
antoine: wiki page about granularity of library data is now obsolete
... will delete content to granularity page, you may want to remove that from the archives
antoine: there was a discussion on a storyboard, for the "youtube" page
tom: I would lead towards dropping that as an action for
the incubator group
... we are getting short on time, doing the report has a higher priority
... I suggest that we continue it, but not as a critical deliverable
... it is fun to think about these ideas, so I would be in favor of continuing it, but not regard it as a deliverable of the group
... shouldn't be a high priority
<GordonD> +1 Tom's suggestion
antoine: would keep it as trailing part of our agenda
emma: was an illustration for library standards resoruce
... tried to explain how library standards relate to each other, to dublin core, linked data standards
... was an important step to draw it
antoine: should we start a discussion on the list?
emma: yes, but I have to update it first
... some things we defined that should be integrated in the last part of the diagram
<GordonD> I think it's important to include the broad relationships between components - I'd like to see the diagram in the final report
<scribe> ACTION: emma to update "layered model" diagram model and lead a discussion on it in the coming weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/03-lld-minutes.html#action07]
karen: we have the page with a lot of presentations
<jodi> that list is VERY messy
karen: tom's idea was that we would extract some good illustrations that could be re-used
karen: diagrams would be an example, to be used to explain
... but we need to discuss this - I would take an action to go through presentations and see what we can use
tom: an idea was that we have powerpoint presentation as part of our deliverables
<jodi> it could also help in writing the executive summary
<jodi> i.e. what to say to "decision makers"
tom: I think we need to concentrate our discussion on what
our main results our
... not sure if we can have a PP presentation as an output of the group
... but having some sort of a presentation format can become a focus for discussing our message in a really condensed way
... a lot of us will have an opportunity to give presentations, would be good to have slides to draw upon
<GordonD> +1 for a standard presentation
<ww> +1 for materials and building blocks
<kcoyle> +1 for good set of graphics
antoine: good ideas - if somebody will take an action, I would be fine
<jodi> +1 for all of the above!
karen: I could look through the presentations and begin to extract some things, to help to start the discussion
<scribe> ACTION: karen to look through the presentations and begin to extract some things, to help to start the discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/03-lld-minutes.html#action08]
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to be careful about property rights
emma: make sure that you have the right for the owners and that it does not conflict with W3C rules
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that we give credit
tom: we will give people give credit on the bottom of the slides, with regards to the source
antoine: wiki page you created "library data and semantic
... can we declare that page as superseded by the CKAN efforts?
ross: yes, I think we agreed on that
... we can deprecate that wikipage in favor of CKAN efforts
<scribe> ACTION: ross to deprecate the "library data and semantic web formats" and create a link to the CKAN efforts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/03-lld-minutes.html#action09]
<jodi> 'deprecate' means that we'll be sure that any info on the wiki will get into CKAN, before deleting the page and redirecting it to CKAN?
<TomB> +1 happy with CKAN approach
ross: there is hardly any information on the page anyway
<jodi> Thanks, Ross! :)
ross: the information will go into ckan, and there will be a note that any information you have will go into CKAN, and how to do that
antoine: today talking about authority data cluster
jeff: still rough, still with stuff that needs to be
... in UNIMARC a primary entity was defined, which authority data is about
... it is about persons, organisations etc.
... some things are difficult to model
... if you think about the RDF ontology for example
... XYZ was thinking about a group of mathematicians
... not sure about how to model that in RDA
... the entities are the things which we are famiiar with from FRBR
<AlexanderH> undifferentiated persons
jeff: in the US we tend to think about personal things
etc., modeling different types of heading
... Antoine has modled parts of the MADS ontology nicely in SKOS
<TomB> @emma: suggest continuing with wiki page discussion next week starting with Topics, Semantic_Web_terminology...
jeff: modeling in FRBR and labeling stuff can be done in
SKOS, as a basis
... Alexander is a little bit uncomfortable with modeling in SKOS
... he would like to see some abstractions from SKOS
... not really comfortable with "real world object" term
... the concepts can be included in real world objects, so not comfortable with re-defining real world object
... the metadata is not about the thing, but the properties of it
antoine: the cluster is about reflecting what is in the use cases
jeff: a lot of use cases don't think about
... very little what they have in common
... what is what makes them "authority"?
<marcia> maybe list those questions in the 'Limitations and Questions"
jeff: the model, a particiular vocabulary being used,
... the kind o entities being there?
<kcoyle> +1 what antoine says - reflect differences as well as similarities
alexander: to answer the question "what is authority
... we try to make sure that we have a kind of indicator of authority
... that is something what we should discuss on the list - what is in, what is out?
... people can add information to linked data, and they can mess it up
<GordonD> The question is: what "things" are libraries interested in - as authorities?
alexander: so is the organisation publishing something important for judging authority, or what else?
<GordonD> That is, of all the "things" that are the subjects of non-library triples.
antoine: if you feel you need the input from the group on
these aspects, please feel free to ask about it
... issues are all important, we have discussed some of them quite a lot
... but we may just want to resolve that there are some open issues that we cann't finish now
... please discuss with the way you think it is useful
... I do feel that it is very important that we base our discussions on observable applications
<GordonD> We can include the broader authority issues in the forthcoming telecon on the Library standards and linked data page
antoine: thanks a lot, Jeff, alexander, joachim
antoine: thanks for today, adjourn