See also: IRC log
<emma> Scribe: Gordon
<uldis> Uldis here. regrets, i can only participate via IRC today.
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of previous conference http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html
<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] [CONTINUES]
<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] [DONE]
<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 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/17-lld-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]
<antoine> great timing, edsu :-)
<edsu> antoine: :-)
<digikim> hello, I would like to read the whole report and provide my/our comments -- can I download the report as a single web page (or pdf file) somewhere?
<digikim> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport <-- I'm aware of this URL
<antoine> @digikim: that would be great, but there's no full report now! Perhaps a topic for the AOB part at the end of the call?
<digikim> antoine: ok
rsinger: Held skype call to
... Discussed who benefits
rsinger: Identified four categories
rsinger: Biggest promise is that each community can describe its world in the way it wants to
rsinger: Libraries may have a
central role in linked data for cultural heritage
... LD allows layered creation of metadata, starting with identifiers
... LD allows end-users to see integration with data they are more familiar with
edsu: LD easier for developers to work with
<TomB> +1 "infinitely expandable description" is great. Is the phrase new?
rsinger: is probably best/most hope for opening data to other domains
<jeff_> the predicates should also be dereferencable for cases where they aren't named intuitively
rsinger: Web provides
infrastructure, so need to develop another one
... We are not alone; others can/will help
... LD provenance problem is being resolved
... Organizations need to understand that their data is more valuable if openly-published for others to work on
... a counter-argument to concerns about revenue streams, IPR, etc.
... Considered differences between digital library and LD
... LD allows finer granularity for re-use of metadata and use in resource discovery
... Library authorities data can be managed on a distributed basis
Emma: initial bullet-points will be used to double-check other areas of report
<scribe> ACTION: Cluster owners to check the bullet-point list reflects their understanding and covers relevant points [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action04]
kcoyle: End-user category should be expanded; this is the most important group that decision-makers will consider
<marcia> + 1 Karen's point
kcoyle: Also expand point about integration with the Web for resource discovery
<jodi> (for me, integration *is* a goal -- because it prevents libraries being lost in the shuffle)
edsu: This is a real challenge for LD
<antoine> There are users that could create and remix data: researcher, general annotators (flickr-like platforms)
kcoyle: Libraries are service organizations
rsinger: Leap of faith that LD resource discovery interfaces will happen - other benefits are more obvious and immediate
kcoyle: We should emphasise user-centric benefits
<edsu> kcoyle: please feel free to move things that yo~u think should be moved
kcoyle: Experience shows a lot of objections when discussing LD with libraries
<jodi> maybe those objections are worth listing!
<jodi> to make a kind of Q&A -- with the responses to those objections...
<jodi> "respond to those objections in the final report"
kcoyle: Final report should acknowledge and respond to such objections
<dvilasuero> +1 karen's point
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to comment on "opening data" in Organization section and to ask about open world or open data? and to comment on take an action on cluster editors to check
rsinger: Agrees with kcoyle that social benefits are important
<edsu> kcoyle: just added "How to get there from here" in the General section, but it might be better suited for the Recommendations
<kcoyle> edsu: thanks
<kcoyle> yes, that's one of the big objections that always comes up
antoine: What does Open world mean - it is ambiguous
rsinger: Bullet-point probably refers to open data, not Open World Assumption
rsinger: Point needs to be tightened up
antoine: Organizations don't have to release all their data, openly
<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to mention prose idea
<kai> +1 to clearly distinguish between benefits of open data and benefits of linked data, and of course benefits of linked open data.
rsinger: Agree, open data can act like an advertisement for the organization and its data
edsu: Would like another week to create narrative text from the bullet-points, which are not user-friendly
<jodi> I think it's useful to keep the bullet points as well -- so please don't overwrite them
<jodi> (sometimes people prefer bullet points for some purposes)
<rsinger> jodi: we won't!
<jodi> thanks Ross! :)
<scribe> ACTION: edsu, emma, rsinger to create narrative text and add to bullet-points [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html#action05]
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to challenge the "RDF is cross-domain" assumption
<edsu> jodi: ok :)
<uldis> +1 re distinction b/w linked data and linked open data -- both can be useful to libraries
<rsinger> +1 # about the model
<edsu> TomB: great, i guess we should talk again on skype
<TomB> +1 on Skype
emma: Challenge assumption that RDF makes everything easy - it is no different from XML in that respect
emma: It is the common data model that makes things easy
<jeff_> +1 on the idea that RDF is about the model
<uldis> there may be cases when linked data is used inside an organisation (between its information systems) without necessarily being open to everyone. (though open would be better :)
<jodi> +1 to "common data model"
<jeff_> I think the idea of OWL is important when we talk about models
<jodi> there is an identifier you can use to overlay your own description -- so that's not quite as static as MARC, I think
edsu: RDF and XML cannot be said
to be mutually exclusive
... Use of identifiers is the big advantage of RDF over XML
marcia: Librarians are end-users, so LD can reduce workload, etc., but are also intermediaries and can fall into two categories
GordonD: We are ALL end-users
<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to comment on organization of section
antoine: Will group categories be kept in the final version of this section? They are very helpful
edsu: Yes, intention is that each group will have its own narrative paragraph
<antoine> developers are not part of society ? ;-)
<rsinger> antoine: they aren't civilized, that's for sure
emma: Suggest presenting in the form of stories aimed at different consumers
edsu: Would need to be short stories!
emma: Should think about prioritising/ordering bullets
<antoine> If the number of items is not big per category, order won't matter too much I think
emma: Need to address audience beyond the library community
emma: Introduces Daniel, our new member
<TomB> Great that you are taking on the UC report, Daniel. Welcome!
dvilasuero: I will be producing the use-case/clusters overview, and welcome any assistance
dvilasuero: Hopes to report on progress next week
<antoine> me too!
<dvilasuero> thank you very much!
<ww> thanks! bye bye for now
<TomB> I'm still here, so "TomB" must have been a different handle