See also: IRC log
<antoine> Previous: 2011-02-14 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html
<TomB> Chair: Antoine
<antoine> Scribe: Lars
<antoine> Scribenick: LarsG
<scribe> RESOLVED: accept minutes http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/17-lld-minutes.html
TomB: Eight respondents for telco
in Asia pacific
... call next week
kefo: is signed up for scribe duty, but wants to change, if it's in the middle of the night.
<kcoyle> we should take some minutes, though, for the others -- maybe not formal
tomB: explains it's not a replacement for the regular call but another call
<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] [CONTINUES]
Antoine: action lead by Karen, created wiki-page
kcoyle: collected all emails into the wiki page
kcoyle: took care of all issues
and limitations from the use cases
... and reorganised them as bullet points which we need to turn into something better
... tried to pull out sensible issues from them
... we need this group or a subgroup to pull out the key issues
... so that the group can discuss
antoine: are you optimistic? Karen has done great work
kcoyle: pull out many issues, what is the case for LLD?
<GordonD> Clarify that these are issues which are problematic and limiting ...
kcoyle: this is where case studies
come in and need to be covered by the report
... we can do some calls and talk about it
antoine: who volunteers to help Karen?
<TomB> TomB volunteers to help
<GordonD> We also need to incorporate stuff from other components of the Problems and limitations section ...
<pmurray> PMurray volunteers to help
kcoyle: will put a call out on the
... what do you mean by other stuff?
<GordonD> There's the next item on this week's agenda ...
<GordonD> e.g. the generic issues raised in the Library standards and linked data section
kcoyle: topics and limitations are included
<emma> I think GordonD thinks about his Library standards issues page
kcoyle: if you're aware of the issues, the group should add those in.
antoine: Gordon probably refers to wiki pages
<GordonD> I will volunteer to help
kcoyle: will pull those in
antoine: could be interesting
<GordonD> But - I am out of action for all of next week ...
<TomB> +1 to call before next meeting
kcoyle: the group seems big enough, let's do a call between now and next meeting
<GordonD> So I'll contribute via email ...
antoine: we have the pages
created by GordonD on library standards and lnked data
... now might be the right time to discuss
GordonD: it's probably better to have the small group pull it into Karen's page
<TomB> I propose March 10
GordonD: we should schedule on which telecon we do it
<GordonD> +1 March 10
antoine: in two weeks time is good, the we can get a clearer picture
<marcia> Jodi sent an email today: "most of the issues we have are not specific to Library Linked Data, but rather are important for Linked Data in general."
kcoyle: sounds good
<GordonD> It's a good deadline!
<kcoyle> marcia, there is a section for SW issues -- 126.96.36.199 -- may need to be renamed/changed, but that is its purpose
<antoine> ACTION: As a future topic for March 10, 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]
Antoine: Problem of topic
... has been main focus point so far, Karen's page can replace that
kcoyle: not a replacement, but a
kind of working area
... a place to clarify our thoughts
<TomB> +1 working area - we will feel freer if we don't worry too much about how it fits in
<GordonD> Topics are also referenced by use cases and clusters ...
kcoyle: this page is a kind of
scribble page, won't replace the report
... it's too messy to be inside the report
antoine: kind of sandbox to be replaced
kcoyle: content to be extracted into report
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest using TopicsDiscussed as a checklist
antoine: media wiki categories, idea was to have each issue represented as its own category. Has anyoune used that?
emma: we should use topics discussed as a checklist, to make sure we haven't forgotten anything
emma: it was useful to discuss them at F2F but not for the report. Karen's work is better
antoine: each topic has its own page
emma: idea was to write a short
paragraph on each topic and that could be transcluded into the
... we could make links between topics and use cases
... if we still want to write about each topic, the issues pages is more organized
antoine: the agenda will keep the topics discussed page
emma: all topics don't have categories, so that won't be complete
antoine: has anyone comments on topics and limitations?
<kcoyle> or send in email
antoine: move on
antoine: six items
antoine: for each item there are
... only summary of the topic
... or keep things at the Wiki
... or make an appendix
... we must agree on how to proceed
... first item: Exec summary
scribe: fully fledged section
<kcoyle> and conclusions
TomB: write exec summary as a
guide on how to read the document, high level view of
... if we write it now we'll have to rewrite it later
<emma> Exec summary shouldn't be only about issues
<marcia> Executive Summary should also be made available as separate unit for print and distribute.
emma: suggest we merge this section with use cases
emma: to show benefit of LLD
<GordonD> +1 to use use cases as illustrations of the benefits
antoine: the benefits of LLD should be the place where UCs are introduced to the report and perhaps the only place where they're mentioned
emma: 50 UCs in the report are too many, we should focus more on benefits, less on limitations, this comes from the clusters
<kcoyle> use cases are proof that there are hoped-for benefits
emma: methodology, how to extract benefits from the UCs
<GordonD> Use cases are a hostage to fortune - first thing a reader will do is see if there is a familiar use case, and if there isn't ...
antoine: many of the UCs show problems at hand in the scenarios
emma: should we review clusters to get benefits from there
<kcoyle> yes, extract benefits -- see what we get -- add in others if needed
emma: maybe we should create a subgroup to extract benefits
antoine: agrees. Volunteers?
<GordonD> +1 use cases digested into clusters, clusters digested into final report
antoine: can emma set up a WG for all volunteers
<scribe> ACTION: emma and ed to start curating a section on benefits of LLD for libraries [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action06]
antoine: we still have possibility to make UCs a full part of the report
<kcoyle> as an appendix?
antoine: as a side deliverable
<emma> +1 for a separate deliverable
edsu: support that idea, much
work has been put into the UCs
... we can extract for the final report, but should present the UCs as a separate deliverable
<TomB> +1 for Use Case deliverable
kcoyle: agree, it gives credit and makes visible that people work in this area, that there are real project and gives credit to those people
... we need volunteers to take care of that deliverable
emma: go back to initial proposal for clusters: read carefully what others have written and put it into a report
<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to suggest we identify editors for the use case document deliverable, rather than lots of reviewers
<marcia> +1 Emma and Ed
<kcoyle> so we need a use case committee/editors
edsu: still has trouble with too many people edit UCs and deliverables. better to have just few editors, instead of doing too much reviewing now
<GordonD> It's the clusters that need reviewed by neutral editors
<emma> @ed +1, just wanted to emphasize that editors of this deliverable souldn't be the authors of the clusters but other people
antoine: to have a limited number of editors might be an option
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that what Ed is proposing is what I proposed in point 1 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html
edsu: someone should have it as an action
TomB: proposes that we have someone to take ownership of UC document, look at case studies and UCs and make a proposal what the section should look like
<kcoyle> noting that jodi is not on this call (right?) and she did much of the use case work
<TomB> jodi is not on the call
<kcoyle> +1 and also on the list
antoine: volunteers now or on the list or both?
<GordonD> But owner of uc document should NOT be someone who has contributed to use cases, clusters ...
<emma> +1 Gordon, we need new perspectives
<GordonD> We need to show objectivity, and a check/balance review is a good method
antoine: this is what TomB and edsu suggest
<kcoyle> did anyone not contribute or review?
<edsu> +1 for chairs to figure it out :-)
<kcoyle> ed, i already have tomB on my committee -- no one else can have him!
<TomB> +1 for chairs to pick victims :-)
<edsu> kcoyle: wait, what committee is that again?
<scribe> ACTION: emma, TomB, and antoine to send a call for finding an owner of the UC deliverable [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action07]
<kcoyle> ed, the issues group
<edsu> kcoyle: oh yeah :-D
<GordonD> Available data is too volatile - there's a new announcement every week
<GordonD> So suggest a summary#
antoine: available data, is this a separate section in the report, or should we just have summary?
GordonD: we hear news about new library data every week, so it's better to summarize. We should concentrate on identifying gaps
edsu: disagrees. +1 to identify
gaps, and there is an oppurtunity for people interested to
become pointers to work done already
... it might be hard, but we need to talk about what there is now
<marcia> Agree with Ed. List vocabularies and related use cases, not to give opinions.
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that what Ed is proposing is what I proposed in point 3 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html
kcoyle: agrees with edsu, perhaps we should pick representative samples (national libraries, individual contributions) but not as a definiive list
<marcia> +1 to start from use cases
<edsu> TomB: ok, glad you proposed it -- so i guess that means you support the idea? :-)
<kcoyle> +1 for putting list related to use cases in use case document -- as related to use cases
<GordonD> Representative samples is fine with me
TomB: somebody should make a proposal to the group, somebody to take ownership of what to happen with vocabularies section
<GordonD> Relation to CKAN on the vocabularies?
antoine: can somebody take that action?
antoine: volunteers himself
<edsu> i would offer to volunteer but i don't want to over-commit
<jeff_> jeff volunteers
<edsu> i reckon rsinger would be good at that stuff too
<scribe> ACTION: Antoine and jeff_ to make a proposal to the group about vocabularies and datasets [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html#action08]
<TomB> The chairs should let EdSu pick victims :-)
antoine: ross might be a good candidate, too
antoine: sees action as making
the proposal, but maybe not the actual work
... we've discussed problems and limitations already
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest that maybe some vocs need highlighting
kcoyle: can we decide now which topics to discuss next week?
antoine: for many topics we don't have owners
<TomB> Today's telecon is #30 - we have a maximum of 13 remaining
<kcoyle> yes, tomB that's the issue
kcoyle: next week we should set ourselves to make deadlines
<emma> Next week : give some milestones for the report