LLD XG

<TomB> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html

joining in a minute

<jodi> wow, today I am the first participant :)

<TomB> Scribe: uldis

<TomB> Scribenick: uldis

LOD-LAM Summit: http://lod-lam.net/ - Guest: Jon Voss

Jon: will tell about the LOD-LAM summit. how it came about, goals.
... was working on Civil War data. were pitching it as LOD for Humanities.
... catch-22: funding vs use cases
... reviewers were split in opinion. needed to define issues, define what is LOD (for the founders)

<TomB> Jon: We needed to make the case to our funders.

Jon: put together a proposal. ... fundation joined. travel support, international participants.
... hope to have as many as 75 people attending
... goals: get all together, use open-space format (BarCamp), participants make own agenda
... people experts in field, passionated. from many areas.
... questions?

kcoyle: what can we do to help?

Jon: main thing is spreading the word. already had 56 applicants. great diversity.
... also policymakers, who can open the doors to have datasets available

TomB: you mentioned looking for use cases. that's what LDD XG has been doing.
... re benefits of using linked data, problems, bottlenecks
... the timing of the summit is when our group will have published its report

Jon: that's perfect. we're trying to get a better idea of what the participants have to bring to the meeting.

antoine_: wondering if we could focus discussion on issues that LLD XG would have identified as open problems

Jon: that's something we can do at the summit.
... interested in going from talking re standards to implementing them as use cases
... another part of summit is to invite funders to talk re what they want to see

<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about openness and linked data

edsu: could you comment re role of openness in the meeting?
... LOD combines 2 things: linked data pattern + open access to data
... how important is the openness?

Jon: in order to have LOD, have to have open data first
... on the organizing committee people from CC, EFF, MIT -- who are working on openness
... hope to have legal experts, policy makers present. to set precedents for people to release data, have it open and sharable

TomB: could you comment re role of the Internet Archive & the preservation aspect of linked data

Jon: IA is the host for this. working very closely together. they are loooking very closely at linked data.

<edsu> antoine_: nice, i heard about some of that in http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GLAMWIKI_UK_Fri_26_11.45_BP_-_Jill_Cousins.ogg

Jon: they're very interested in being involved

TomB: more questions? no. thanks to Jon for joining us.

<marcia> thanks to Jon

ADMIN

RESOLUTION: to accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html

TomB: checking w W3C re reserving Zakim at a very late hour (midnight)

<jodi> midnight EST is fine here in Ireland! :)

TomB: for having a meeting dedicated to Asia-Pacific time zone

USE CASE CLUSTERS

jeff_: ready to let people comment re authority data

<antoine_> ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

jodi: social uses cluster: got new use cases
... have other ideas from JISC, etc that we want to look at

<antoine_> ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUES]

kcoyle: can' t exactly say where are re collection cluster

<scribe> ACTION: GordonD and Karen to curate collection cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/06-lld-minutes.html#action11] [DONE]

<jodi> yeah! :)

kevin: looking at combining documents. need another week to see which clusters have webservice related things

<antoine_> ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing clusters to see where the web service dimension could be strengthened. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13] [CONTINUES]

FINAL REPORT DRAFT

TomB: we have a draft report. Jodi created draft with transclusions.

<jodi> It is here: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion

TomB: lots of sections in use case clusters that need to be consolidated into sections we haven't started yet

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine, Emma, TomB to send a call for reviewers to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action14] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Jodi to replace placeholders in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport with transclusion code [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

FINAL REPORT TOPICS

TomB: propose to add names to these 8 topics
... 1) What to do with the use cases themselves?
... cluster texts include scenarious = intermediate steps. what should we do with them. put in the final report (e.g. appendix)
... thinking re appendix w one-line summary of use cases and bullet points from scenarios
... q: is this a good idea? 'd like someone to volunteer.

kcoyle: sent an email before meeting. use cases should not be in the document. we are not certain they cover important LOD issues
... we need to discuss those issues - the fact lib cataloging uses text, net data. large amount of this info already out there. no support from big institutions.

TomB: how should we handle use cases? agree they are not part of the report itself.
... or are you saying use cases are deficient?

<antoine_> @kcoyle: isn't this issue related to "problems and limitations"?

kcoyle: an appendix listing use cases ++
... we must extract info from them to put in the report. what the use cases tell us about the environment
... report has to extract those important issues
... the appendix = some info we drew our conclusions from

TomB: task is not difficult. to look at how to make an appendix.

antoine_: some things can be independent from use cases

kcoyle: don't know. we have not had a discussion re the big issues.

<jodi> I think we know a lot about the issues, even though we haven't formally discussed

kcoyle: what is group's thinking re this?

<jodi> (this was also an interesting part from the youtube video Tom sent yesterday -- a good discussion of issues)

antoine_: we have a placeholder in the report re this

<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about editors for the document

<jodi> browseability and visualization, particularly, are issues we may not have much discussed

edsu: agree w kcoyle. we have not talked re big issues.
... have concerns re concentrating only on use cases.

<jodi> +1 to whole-document editors

edsu: need to identify editors for the [whole] document. they can then propose how they want to see the report.
... legacy data is one of important topics, as kcoyle wrote

<antoine_> isn't what ed is talking about finding editors for http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport#Problems_and_limitations , specifically?

<jodi> TomB++ : complexity of the whole is making it hard to understand what's important

<antoine_> @TomB: can we start with point #5? Seems popular :-)

<jodi> @antoine: what is point #5?

<kcoyle> it's problems and limitation

TomB: 1) was re moving details of use cases into an appendix. to help us to focus on big issues.

<kcoyle> and i do think we need to start there

TomB: 5) Getting a start on Problems and Limitations (section 1.5)

<jodi> ah, points from the review list. Thanks! :)

TomB: need someone to read problems / limitations part of use cases and propose how to merge them

<kcoyle> i don't think this is a one-person task. i think it's a task for the whole group

<jodi> I think there's already a good start on this, from what Karen did with summarizing the problems/limitations from the (archives?) cluster.

TomB: trying to break up tasks. anything we don't need in the final report can be moved to a "parking lot".
... aim to have a document that has the analytical parts, not the details

<jodi> I can read problems/limitations of the use cases and see what the common ones are. I don't know about 'proposing how to merge them'

TomB: volunteers?
... proposed that chairs assign volunteers.

kcoyle: you 're trying to work from details up
... some of use willing to work from top (main issues) down

<marcia> The previous 'dimensions' page might be a good way to look at the limitations and problems.

kcoyle: hard to work from details because i don't understand the context
... you are starting with details.

<edsu> +1

kcoyle: why don't we start w the report, add details as needed
... not happy with the existing document.
... start with thinking re what we want to have in the report
... before starting writing

<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask about editors

edsu: on last call i was against the transclusion. TomB, kcoyle both right. a question of a work approach.
... would like to have people own an action to write this document
... and for them to take 1st pass at writing something
... then iterate
... and bring in detailed content later.
... starting from individual pieces and trying to merge them together can make the report fragmentary

TomB: these tasks were on assumption of consensus re starting to work on the long document
... happy to start w a short document and add things in
... could ask people to read all manuscripts, extract key ideas (benefits, limitations, relevant technologies)
... willing to act as an editor for the document as a whole
... but it's a big task.

<kcoyle> we all have to generate ideas -- the group

TomB: who will generate ideas for big picture items?
... need people to step up

jodi: re approaches top-down vs bottom-up
... was horrified re results of transclusion. a lot of information there. more info in people's heads.
... by stripping it down we may loose parts that are interesting, important
... can we work from both directions at once?
... need a very rough draft at the executive summary
... a good place to start. each has some main messages in mind.
... not ignore what we have, but jumpstart discussion by putting together some text

<kefo> jodi++ : begin with a type of lengthy abstract. outline base points of longer report, develop more detailed document from the executive report

<TomB> a?

jodi: must have the grand message from the group

<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to clarify that "topic curators" should not limit themselves to things they read in the raw draft

<edsu> +1 for starting w/ executive summary, and then see what else is needed

TomB: starting with the executive summary = interesting idea

<kcoyle> or at least a list of issues

<jodi> +1 for getting text we can react to

TomB: we need a text that we can react to

<jodi> (maybe that's the problem with the curated use cases -- there's no "argument" being made, just description)

TomB: would like people to see take ownership of topics (e.g. 5) problems and limitations)
... propose to learn from what we have, but also to put down things we have in our head
... writing exec summary as a first step can be useful (though usually done last)

kcoyle: propose all to put main 5 issues into email

<edsu> kcoyle: love that idea

kcoyle: then discuss those groups of issues and see where we go from that

<antoine_> Issues in the line of http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/TopicsDiscussed ??

<jodi> kcoyle: great idea!

kcoyle: use email for discussion. start without structure.
... just list 5 main things we have seen come out from our work

TomB: propose distinction b/w things we see as most important and things [maybe not most important] that are of concern to us
... lot of richness may come from ideas which are not most important but which we find a interesting
... are any of the 8 points that we can salvage and start with the brainstorming approach?
... opinions?

<antoine_> Is there objection on the other points?

TomB: .silence.

<jodi> +1 to calling on people :)

<rsinger> why?

<rsinger> can we assume there's no objection?

TomB: jodi?

<rsinger> or ambivalence?

<TomB> Uldis: +1 brainstorming approach

jodi: we could salvage some points, but there's something vivid and lively re brainstorming

TomB: this could be a good way to get to the next step
... what all thing re proposed brainstorming approach?
... kai +1

<marcia> yes

marcia: +1

antoine_: +1 we try it. still think we must consider the other points.

<kcoyle> +1

antoine_: look at relevant technologies and other things we don't need extensive brainstorming on

<jodi> +1 to looking at a few other points as well

<kcoyle> we could identify parts that we could do now

TomB: agree re that

jeff_: agree re starting from executive summary as a start

kefo: along the way we will identify problems and limitations. things like 4) re analysis of library standards will find natural home.

edsu: +1

rsinger: like the idea. but how are we gonna manage 100+ points people will come up.
... especially in email.

<jodi> agree that management of this is challenging -- but I think that makes this more useful rather than less

<jodi> kcoyle++

TomB: can cluster them quickly in email.

<kefo> I think broad topics will rise to the top

kcoyle offered to organize them

pmurray: nothing to add

AlexanderH: concern re management of collected info

jneubert: +1

digikim: ...

fsasaki: ...

<digikim> ah sorry - doing n+2 other things while listening

<kcoyle> I will start the email so there is something to follow-up on

<michaelp> I would urge people to look at topic list and minutes of Pittsburgh for ideas/preparation.

<kcoyle> thanks, mp

<edsu> kcoyle++

TomB: ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email message in the next week about important issue
... kcoyle offered to kick it off

<jodi> link to topic list and minutes for Pittsburgh: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/F2F_Pittsburgh

<kcoyle> put on our thinking caps

<kefo> bye

<jodi> thanks, this was quite useful!

<michaelp> I think Pittsburgh had some great big picture discussions,

<TomB> [adjourned]

<scribe> ACTION: everyone (on the call and off) to send email message in the next week re brainstorming on important issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html#action08]