See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: monica
<TomB> Scribenick: monica
<emma> sorry for being late
<ww_> RRSAgent: present: ww_
PROPOSED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/24-lld-minutes.html
emma: only 10 telcons left agenda
now lists all the telcons with chair and a proposed topic for
... would like to discuss this proposed schedule
... first introducing telcon for Asia participants - invites TomB to introduce
TomB: Monday or Tuesday depending
... 10 people expected no agenda topics suggested so far
<emma> TomB: looking for agenda ideas
<emma> ... other wise informal discussion
<emma> ... we don't have a scribe yet, late for the US
<marcia> Can we have two scribers -- we are not familiar with the coming participants and not sure whether will be able to understand them?
<emma> ... could be difficult to understand
emma: suggests during the meeting we should discuss the content of the report
<uldis> marcia: re two scribes -- perhaps one of them from Asia-Pacific region/timezone
emma: agenda proposes contents of
report discussed in the upcoming telcons
... someone to lead the discussion of the contents (each section)
... assuming we agree on contents
... we need to check we have owners for each section of the report
... owner could be doing aggregation or summarising
... some people are more comfortable with writing than others
... we need to have text in each section
emma: we can now review the list of telcons alongside the outline of report contents
<kcoyle> emma - plan sounds good
emma: any comments?
emma: I am trying to clarify what we are asking owners to do - could be writing or other tasks
<marcia> uldis: Not sure who will be there... looks like only 2-3 and maybe they need to speak.
emma: according to schedule, next week's discussion will be data issues led by Gordon
scribe: then will be discussion on problems and limitations, 2 telcons, led by karen
karen: agrees two telcons is a good idea
<GordonD> +1 for 2 slots for problems and limitations
emma: On 2011-03-31 discussion would be on LLD Benefits, owned by Ed and Emma
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to confirm that Gordon for "library data issues" next week means http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_BibData ...?
<antoine> no it is http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data
emma: 2011-04-27 discussion on use cases
edsu: agrees on date
emma: invites others to join in benefits of LLD section
<rsinger> i'll join
emma: 2011-04-07 UC report
... previous discussion said there was too much to go in the report from the clusters
... any volunteers for the job of aggregating use case clusters
... no volunteers yet
<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][CONTINUES]
<emma> 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] [CONTINUES]
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Library_standards_and_linked_data is not linked to
TomB: do we need to decide what to do with the contents of that page?
Gordon: I thought what we agreed
was that page would feed into problems and limitations
... I would tease out limitations to feed into karen's work
karen: we need to think about a
question as we go through this - who is our audience?
... what motivated Gordon to write this was a need to educate some audiences about realities in the library environment that they may not be aware of
... there is not much of this in problems and limitations, we need to decide how much background we give, which depends on who the audience is
... librarians already understand some issues, others outside library will not be aware of them
marcia: it would be useful to
decide who the audience is
... the title of the group is library data, much thinking on big libraries
<jar_> "long tail" also important, yes
marcia: principles of open bibliographic data is helpful
karen: I think we have not yet
defined what we mean by library data
... I have a short definition I can share - people may not agree
<antoine> cf use cases for "library data"
emma: yes we need to think about
scope of report
... 2011-04-14 discussion on available data and vocabulary - antoine and jeff leading
<digikim_> sorry, seems like I can't join the phone conference (due to being busy with other things currently) :-/
antoine: it is not about
gathering vocabulary and datasets yet
... we tried to take into account what was said in the last call
... we wanted to say something about representative datasets
... use cases provide pointers to vocabs/datasets
<marcia> monica: what I was speaking was about non-academic and national libraries. There are many informaiton centers, vertual libraries, digital collections that are not from those MARC or ISBD based. They produce more open bibliographic data.
antoine: people from other
domains may be asking questions about the LOD - the cloud does
not say everything
... especially how people can contribute who are not from libraries
<marcia> Monica: the example I used is the National Science Digital Library, which has very rich resource. The contributors are mostly not from the traditional, physical libraries.
<jar_> +1. important to articulate the value proposition of LD (for someone)
antoine: next we made reference
to that LOD cloud
... starting from the use cases we are gathering the data sets connected to the UCs
... next point in the section will be to identify gaps also starting from UCs
<edsu> jar_: someone = cultural heritage institutions: libraries, archives, museums, etc
<TomB> +1 sounds good
antoine: present as work in progress, tell people what they might expect in future
<jar_> edsu: yes.
antoine: this could lead to
...summary: aim of section, identify datasets, identify gaps, issues, work in progress
... what we have gathered will be presented as snapshot
... second part will be focused on CKAN LLD group to continue the effort
... this section is flexible
... we are suggesting that one of us liaise with R Cygniak
... ask what they need from LLD
<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] [DONE]
antoine:we will need people to help us we welcome input on these sections - any of the sections or the separate deliverable last week's telcon - people who made comments then are welcome to comment but open to anyone to help with these sections
<rsinger> i am
<marcia> I am in
<edsu> ww_: we are talking about you :-)
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that the snapshot be very "broad-brush" (i.e., not take much writing effort away from sections in the main report) because whatever list is presented in
TomB: we need to keep an eye on the report
<ww_> edsu: ack
TomB: it will be interesting for people reading the report to get a sense of what is out there, but as a resource it would get out of date
antoine: links to authority files, subject headings
jeff: a snapshot helps becuase it gives you the idea that there is alot more going on and things are changing
emma: last 10 minutes
<rsinger> a snapshot also gives a reference to build on
emma: 2011-04-21 discussion would be requirements and recommendations
<rsinger> re: future snapshots
<antoine> @rsinger: yes!
<kcoyle> won't issues lead to that?
emma: no content yet we need to
get a sense of what we would expect in this section
... do we have specific expectations on this?
<jar_> You can't have requirements unless you've articulated what goal you're trying to reach. "X is required in order for ..."
karen: we can't do requiqrements
until we have done issues
... the issues discussions will lead to how we approach requirements
emma: we need to have something
in mind, there are some placeholders
... when working on other sections
<GordonD> +1 to have indications of requirements from the work on the problems and limitations section
<GordonD> +1 to separate requirements from recommendations
emma: we should think about requirements, recommendations and what we would like to see happening
<GordonD> Issues lead to requirements lead to recommendations
karen: requirements and
recommendations are different things but we need to have
thought about the issues
... example recommendation would be to create another group
antoine: was going to make
similar points, some recommendations are not
... in COlogne Guenther Neher had volunteered to write something about curricula
... maybe we can contact him
emma: agrees, outreach-related
work questions needs discussion
... may need to be addressed in a May call
... we need to check all sections have been discussed once
... in May we will check that we have done so
<GordonD> This is a good schedule!
emma: that leaves a few months
<kcoyle> it's good to HAVE a schedule to try to achieve
emma: there are 4 topics without owners
emma: do we keep in use case
report, in appendix, as something else?
... relevant technologies are important, people ask 'are there tools'
karen: tools will end up on the issues page - everyone wants to know what are the tools we can use today, the lack of those tools will be one of the issues
jeff: tools available - we can provide pointers to the ones available, maybe short descriptions
<GordonD> Relevant technologies are also volatile (like vocabularies/datasets) so suggest a similar treatment
<kcoyle> jeff, can you make that list?
<kcoyle> also, differ between tools for develoeprs and tools for users
<TomB> jeff, that would be extremely valuable
<marcia> Karen: FYI: The open ontology group's identified audiences for the messages we need to deliver: (i) policy makers, (ii) budget holders, (iii) Technology Decision Makers (CIOs and Architects), (iv) Implementers (engineers and developers), (v) users/consumers of the technology, and (vi) educators
<michaelp> I was in there, too.
emma: there was a pending action
AlexanderH: agrees this is important, but it is difficult to give recommendations for the far future
<marcia> Karen: That list might be a different detail level from what you were talking about the 'audiences'.
<jodi> marcia: good list of audiences
<kcoyle> marcia: i like that list, will think about
<rsinger> me too
antoine: we could provide pointers, recommendation for the next future would be useful for community
<TomB> Any tools list will go out of date quickly but a list characterizing what is available in a broad-brush way would be helpful.
emma: thanks everyone
<AlexanderH> htank u