See also: IRC log
joining in a minute
<jodi> wow, today I am the first participant :)
<TomB> Scribe: uldis
<TomB> Scribenick: uldis
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
... 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.
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
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
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]
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]
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
... 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
... 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'
... 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.
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
... 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
... 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
... 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
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
... 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?
<antoine_> Is there objection on the other points?
<jodi> +1 to calling on people :)
<rsinger> can we assume there's no objection?
<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
antoine_: +1 we try it. still think we must consider the other points.
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.
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
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
<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
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
<jodi> thanks, this was quite useful!
<michaelp> I think Pittsburgh had some great big picture discussions,
<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]