LLD XG

<emma_> Previous: 2011-03-31 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html

<emma_> Scribe: Ross

<emma_> scribenick: rsinger

Admin

PROPOSED: To accept 12http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/31-lld-minutes.html

Asia-Pacific Telecon:

><TomB> will get in touch with Japanese colleagues to arrange a new time.

FINAL REPORT DRAFT

Use case and requirements report, dvilasuero

<emma_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0011.html

dvilasuero: not much time to work on this
... followed recommendation from TomB
... any comments? Hints?

<emma_> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport

<antoine> -> an HTML page

antoine: there are some templates available on the W3C site, we can reuse them

TomB: I suggest we do it in the wiki and then transfer it over to HTML, unless your preference is editing HTML

emma_: any comments?

<TomB> +1 discuss now

antoine: Sent email to the list with some comments, we can discuss now? Later?
... First, it's definitely the right direction

<emma_> +1 for the graph :-)

antoine: I like the graph, it's useful to have visual information of the process
... 2) We are really able to see the differences between the use cases, so hopefully we can get more homogeneous description between them
... some are not compatible from an editorial perspective with the others
... get the curators to come back, read the descriptions and revise them

emma_: the extracted use cases?

antoine: yes, the extracted use cases

<dvilasuero> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#Extracted_Use_Cases

antoine: another comment, agrovoc use case, there could be comments on the wording, but this is exactly what I was looking for

dvilasuero: this is an example from TomB

antoine: size and level of detail is perfect

dvilasuero: everyone can go back and participate in the editing of this page

antoine: small editorial comment, add links to the wiki pages

dvilasuero: both for the use cases and the clusters?

antoine: yes
... general structure, would it be more interesting to have the extracted use cases first?

<marcia> +1

dvilasuero: sounds correct

<TomB> +1 on switching order of "extracted" use cases and individual use cases

<Zakim> emma_, you wanted to ask about overlapping extracted cases

emma_: there might be cases where there are overlaps

antoine: do you have a specific example of overlaps?

emma_: no specifics, but I remember some of the clusters have similarities

antoine: reluctant to remove structure; useful reading guide

emma_: if you think it's useful to keep the clusters...

antoine: not so sure, just a gut feeling

dvilasuero: maybe we can keep for now, and when completed we can revisit organization

<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that descriptions of the individual use cases include at least one pointing to the project or case. Wondering whether that link should be to the

TomB: each of these descriptions point to another document, should that be the frozen wiki page? or directly to the project, which would require a little more work?

emma_: what is your recommendation?

<antoine> +1

TomB: I would suggest they point to the frozen wiki pages

<dvilasuero> +1 to tomb

<antoine> also ensures that some description remains

emma_: I agree, more persistence.

<digikim> uh great, I found the _transcluded_ version of the report. this is much easier to check than tens of different wiki pages... just wondering if this transcluded version is up to date... (?)

TomB: These pages capture the project at a particular point in time

antoine: Terminology: some are just example cases, not actually use cases - not real user scenarios
... perhaps we should adapt the naming convention, "Contributed cases"?

<marcia> Agree that this is an issue... some of them are not 'use cases'

emma_: we had a lot of discussion on this and the definition of what was actually expected
... or do we want to call this a use case report?

antoine: we can, although they may not actually be use cases
... a cluster is a list of use cases
... ok as a textual explanation of the graph

emma_: should we just forget explanation of the process and produce the results?

antoine: we should remind readers that a call had been sent, that this is community contribution, etc.

emma_: dvilasuero, may want to ask on the list

<TomB> dvilasuero, I have parked references to the use case wiki pages in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCaseReport#References for now...

dvilasuero: we should describe what this graph is
... and have a discussion on the mailing list

<TomB> ...for cutting and pasting...

<marcia> There could also be some 'see also' references between extracted case clusters-- some have more than others and may address an issue can apply to another cluster.

<digikim> antoine: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion

emma_: at the end of the extracted use cases, there are two clusters that don't have any extracted use cases

marcia: I looked at the new use case page, very good. could there be some kind of references to each other?
... there is the digital object extracted part, but it may have other issues already addressed by another part
... archives, bibliographic data, etc.
... this may save time
... readers could be attracted by the title "Digital Objects" and it's sparse - if there were references to other sections, they could be drawn to the other cases to see the overlaps

emma_: Agreed, this is what I was referring to with overlaps.

dvilasuero: i want to point out, re: overlapping, I identified some
... social uses shared with bibliographic data cluster
... didn't know which cluster to put it in, so for now it is duplicated

<antoine> This is for individual contributed cases, isn't it?

emma_: so sometimes it's duplicated, sometimes it's referenced

emma_: are we talking about the clusters? or the individual cases? The clusters, right?

dvilasuero: no, the individual cases

emma_: maybe we can just make a link in that case
... any other comments?

<dvilasuero> +1 emma's suggestion

emma_: all this about vocabularies, etc. is not going into the use case report, it's going into the final report, is that right?
... that extracted in the clusters, issues, vocabs.
... is that the intention?

antoine: all the stuff extracted from the use cases should make its way into the final report one way or another
... recommendations, issues, vocabularies, separate deliverable

emma_: just keep the extracted cases?

antoine: should be enough to keep the links to the use case "frozen wiki pages"

emma_: any more questions on the use case report?

dvilasuero: i should have more time in the coming days, so I will report on the progress

emma_: great starting point, so thank you very much
... we have more time, so let's go through the other sections

<dvilasuero> I am sorry but I have to run to a meeting, Thanks everyone for the feedback and help :-)

<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]

emma_: Executive summary, we'll write later
... Benefits of LD in libraries, we discussed last week

<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] [CONTINUES]

<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] [CONTINUES]

<marcia> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0006.html

Available data (vocabularies, datasets) (Antoine, Jeff, Marcia, William)

cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Mar/0006.html

ww: going to spend some time this weekend with graphviz to make some pictures
... not sure of a Library data subcloud of the LOD cloud
... not sure that will happen before the deadline of this document

antoine: will continue discussion over email

emma_: this should be up for discussion next week?

ww: yes

Relevant technologies (as described in #6 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Feb/0034.html)

<TomB> +1 pictures :-)

<scribe> ACTION: Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP elaborate on general purpose IT architecture for dealing with linked data with caching feature (short sketch for final report) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUES]

jeff_: Do we want a couple paragraphs of relevant technology? Right now we have list of things

emma_: these will go out of date quite quickly

TomB: it will go out of date quickly; if somebody is willing to write something... Concerned about a relevant technology section being spotty

<antoine> perhaps just a typology of tools, with one or two pointers?

<TomB> @antoine: yes, something pretty high-level...

<TomB> ...with disclaimers that "this is not exhaustive" and a few pointers to sources of maintained lists

emma_: we will add this to the agenda

TomB: to summarize, something high level that has disclaimers being non-exhaustive, time-sensitive, with points to sites that keep on top of the situation would be great
... small piece

<antoine> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Tool

emma: Problems and limitations section

<antoine> -> this is the page I was refering to

emma: any comments?

TomB: We had some Skype calls, another early next week
... made great progress, not all reflected in doc on wiki, yet. We have assignments among ourselves
... problems AND recommendations, also part of that document

pmurray: our Skype call is on Monday, 11 AM EDT, let us know if you want to join

emma_: Requirements and recommendations section

<emma_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Mar/0171.html

<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] [DONE]

emma_: call scheduled on the subject of requirements, on April 25th

antoine: question for pmurray and TomB, looking at vocabulary page, at the deliverable - there appear to be recommendations at the beginning, should this go into the recommendation section?

<antoine> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabularies#Vocabulary_discussion_in_Pittsburgh

TomB: I will circulate that to the group and see if we can work it in

emma_: any other business?

<digikim> yes

digikim: easier to read the report if it's transcluded to one big page

<digikim> antoine: sounds good

<digikim> deadline?

<scribe> ACTION: Update the transcluded version of the report [digikim] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06]

emma_: no deadline for this action
... any other business?

[adjourned]

<digikim> antoine: what would be the optimal day to do a first update of the transcluded? ("now", "next wednesday", ...?)

<antoine> next wednesday is good