See also: IRC log
<antoine> Previous: 2011-03-17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0069.html
<antoine> Scribe: kevin
<antoine> Scribenick: kefo
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html
Antoine: Gordon's page a complete
description of standards. Wondering where it might fit?
... Anyone have comments about this?
... It is the library data resources page.
<GordonD> Note that it's not entirely "my" page - it is a conflation of two earlier pieces, one of which was mine
kcoyle: Could go with vocabularies, but we don't have a general description about where things are in the library world and this kind of communicates this.
Antoine: This is mostly vocab related.
kcoyle: It has MARC, AACR, RDA....
Antoine: Perhaps a library resource data page?
kcoyle: This is not particular to any single issue, but a general overview.
GordonD: I see this page now as a
type of snapshot of what is going on. Will this page be
maintained after the life of the group?
... It would be useful to have a page that keeps everyone informed, providing a general page for library standards./
Antoine: It certainly has details
that need to be in the final report.
... GordonD, do you believe it is ready for publication, as a type of deliverable.
GordonD: Yes, but could change tomorrow. Perhaps the derliverable is a Wiki page that could be maintained, so there is always a current place to go for info.
Antoine: Perhaps move this page
to the community-oriented wiki for community editing and
... We could make a snapshot as a deliverable, but with ample note that it is a snapshot and changing.
GordonD: I'm happy to monitor this page and revisit this just before the final report is published.
kcoyle: Have we talked about who our audience is for the deliverable? How much knowledge of library data are we assuming on the part of the readers?
Antoine: I think we determined that the audience is extremely varied. Not everyone will be aware of the complexities of the library domain.
kcoryle: Then we will likely need
an explanatory section./
... There are some points we will need to make. A section that includes the key points.
... Those that are most relevant to our tasks; contextualization for the rest of the report.
Antoine: Could this be treated in the problems and limitations section? It discusses some of the issues regarding complexity.
kcoyle: Something to think about. Could we position the issues page to frame this issue.
GordonD: We came to an opposite decision earlier. My contribution came from the library standards page, part of which was merged into the problems and limitations page.
GordonD: I like the idea of a glossary, info page. And we can have a paragraph in the final report that would direct interested readers to a page with fgar more depth intothis issue.
<scribe> ACTION: For Gordon and Karen to consider relation between problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01]
<marcia> It is more like the 'Status of This Document' in W3C docs such as SKOS
Antoine: Ed, Emma - How is the action - to start curating a section of benefits of LLD for libraries - coming along?
edsu: Can't make next week's telecon, so won't be able to discuss then.
Ross: I can discuss. Emmanuelle has started something. Should be ready for next week. Definitely the bullet points. I can present:
<scribe> ACTION: edsu, rsinger, emma to create a few bullet points on the benefits of linked data in libraries for the call on March 31st [CONTINUES] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action01]
<rsinger> save your karma until after i actually do something :)
Antoine: New member, Daniel Vila
Suero. He will own the Use Case document(s).
... Available data (vocabularies, datasets), on going.
... Jeff published page for tools, any comments?
... Requirements and contributions section. Guenther offered, but was concerned about how much time he would be able to commit to this.
... There was some discussion about someone lending Guenther some assistance. Anyone interested?
Antoine: Jodi and Uldis, status report?
Uldis: We've gathered some info
and use cases. These are here:
... Jodi and I haven't had the time in the last couple of weeks. Can't say something definitive about the time frame, but we hope to have something for the group in the next two weeks.
... We have good information, but if anyone would like to take a second look, or add a little, there is time.
... Lastly, assuming we'll have a cluster report for social uses, it would be appropriate to have that too in the draft report.
Antoine: It should be mentioned
in the final report and the side deliverable.
... Feel free to add something to the draft report.
<scribe> ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03]
kcoyle: Three main things
happened this week. We worked in the issue of redundancy. We
added some questions (ones about terminology, others about
whether we should have a separate section on library
... In each section, we have info about library data. So there is some redundancy.
... Throughout there are questions that relate directly to library data. Perhaps we should pull this information out as its own issue. Should we try to do that and then let people weigh in?
kcoyle: There are neatly defined
problems and limitations, and various issues that find a
natural home in an existing section. But the redundancy issue,
for example, doesn't quite fit in any of the existing sections.
And, because it keeps coming up, perhaps it should have its own
... for example, in the second to last paragraph, we trying to talk about the current library data model and its relation to the linked data data model.
Antoine: Does this relate to list discussion about constraints?
kcoyle: Some issues are current and present issues. But then there are others that have more to do with *future* library work.
GordonD: I think we're confalting
2 or 3 things here. There is an issue with legacy library data.
But there is another issue that revolves around syncing legacy
library data to newer models.
... Newer models havea better chance of integrating Linked Data ideas.
<ww> GordonD: agree it is a generic problem
kcoyle: I still have the question
about the issue about having existing library data moving to
new model. Are we saying the same thing when we use "data
model" in these cases?
... Gordon's proposed an alternate wording for this.
GordonD: Some of the wording
makes assumptions that are not explicitly said.
... We can say that there are problems with legacy data. But we don't have to say that legacy models are negatively impacting moving to linked data model.
Antoine: What about the role of catalogers?
GordonD: This is an important
point. But, we have to focus on presenting information in one
specific way which will necessarily scatter other necesssary
messages around the document.
... I think there is a key message about legacy library data and I think there is a key message to be made for linked data helping the future.
kcoyle: There is a great focus on FRBR and that it is the road to linked data for libraries. Do we want to say something in favor or against this.
<rsinger> ...in all cases
<rsinger> (let's clarify)
ww: I think the important point is the one Dan Brickley made. You don't have to talk about FRBR, but the model of data.
<marcia> treat as ONE of the options
kcoyle: So what do we say instead?
Antoine: Marcia has proposed ot treat FRBR as ONE of the options, which seems fair.
kcoyle: In that case, that
... Gordon's alternate wording.
<ww> kefo: to rephrase: might not be the best strategy to mechanically translate WEMI to RDF classes
jeff_: I think the FRBR classifications are less important than the relationships.
edsu: It would be hard to envision a report that didn't mention FRBR, but endorsing it as *the* model for library data might not be wise. Fine to talk about it as a conceptual model that has found its way into other vocabularies and has found its supporters.
<marcia> or say 'emerging'
<GordonD> +1 identifiers are the key (forgive pun)
ross: I think one way to de-emphasize one model or another is to focus on identifiers.
kcoyle: Right, emphasize identifiers and RDF.
ross: FRBR can be mentioned, and other bibliographic models, but what matters more are the identifiers (model matters too). But, once we have identifiers, we have the flexibility to describe them.
<GordonD> Identifiers = authority control (kind of), and this bridges lld pov with library pov
<rsinger> GordonD: agreed
<ww> 1+ to emphasis on identifiers
kcoyle: I think the next step is to look at recommendations.
<edsu> rsinger: yeah, i liked that too
kcoyle: We've started to add recommendations as bullet points. If others want to add to this work, please do. Then we can start turning this into text.
<ww> keep the field open for different conceptual and organisational models grounded in the identifiers
kcoyle: For every issue, we
should have at least one recommendation. What do we want to do
with the issues?
... The issues are imporant, but our recommendations are the real contribution here.
... We can set up a page, ask others, and recommend people discuss it on the list.
<GordonD> +1 put the recommendations up for public lld discussion
<GordonD> I think we may get some surprising feedback
<scribe> ACTION: Karen to request feedback from community on recommendations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action04]
Antoine: There was an action for all to look at the use cases and report back.
kcoyle: We did not get a lot of feedback, but I think we're all on the same page. So, I'm not concerned
<scribe> ACTION: everyone to take a look at the issues and make sure that points from the use cases are represented in the document [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action04]
<GordonD> We're in a feedback loop until closer to the final report - so further feedback on problems and limitations is welcome
<kai> Sorry, I have to leave timely today. Bye everyone.
Antoine: next action. Discussion of open questions about library standards and linked data
GordonD: I think we can close that action.
<scribe> 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 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/27-lld-minutes.html#action03]
Antoine: Any additional business? Comments?
<rsinger> great moderating :)
Antoine: OK, we'll adjourn the meeting. Thanks all. See you next week.
<ww> bye all