See also: IRC log
<antoine> Previous: 2011-04-07 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html
<kefo> oh no. Sorry, my regrets - I have a conflicting meeting.
<TomB> can you all hear me?
I can hear you ok, TomB
<Uldis> audio is breaking up, can't hear TomB either
<edsu> i have to leave the telecon early, unfortunately
<edsu> but thought i would listen while i can
<TomB> having trouble dialing in - waiting for operator assistance. Can Antoine or Emmanuelle please start with the admin details?
RESOLUTION: To accept last week's minutes http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html
Antoine: In an upcoming telcon (possibly next week), Harry Halpin (or someone else from W3C) will talk about the possibility of a W3C Community Group forming after this group finishes. W3C Community Group is more informal. This would be an interesting way to continue the work that has been done in this group.
TomB: Dialing in with a phone
... Next item is the Asia-Pacific teleconference. Dixon and Hideoki have expressed interest. There is a doodle poll: http://www.doodle.com/e86qabb6kegceagr
Most likely dates are April 27th or 28th. The hour is expected to be 9 PM on the U.S. West Coast, midnight on the U.S. East Coast, which is early AM hours for European time.
Ed: Would it be ok for Dan Chudnov to sit in on that call? (Japan context)
TomB: Sure, Ed.
TomB: I did a significant restructuring of draft report. I also emoved the draft text for now, so it's now a list of sections:http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport
TomB We also have some
... Use Case Report (Daniel is working on this)
... LLD Vocabularies and Datasets (we'll discuss this later on the call)
... There was an action on Kim to update the transcluded version of the report.
<scribe> ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06] -- continues
TomB: Benefits of LD for libraries will be discussed in an upcoming call, in 2 weeks.
Ross: We decided against turning the benefits lists into stories... it would be redundant.
<scribe> ACTION: Cluster owners to check the bullet-point list in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits 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
TomB: There are two wiki pages... which one should we be looking at?
<digikim_> I have some problem in contactin irc.w3.org
<scribe> ACTION: Digikim to update the transcluded version of the report by Wed Apr 13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/07-lld-minutes.html#action06] [CONTINUES]
<digikim_> Jodi: about my task: based on Thomas Baker email on the list, the DraftReport wikipage is outdated, so I did not proceed at the moment with the transclusion task
<Jodi> thanks digikim :)
<TomB> @digikim - it makes sense to hold off on transclusion for now
<digikim_> TomB: yes
TomB: Recommendations is being drafted as the second half of the draft issues page
TomB: I'm not sure if we want a different term. Generally, 'requirements', means what needs to be achieved in general, to be extracted from the issues. But when I think of requirements, I assume that there's a specific application that is being designed.
TomB: LLD is such a large thing
that I have a little bit of difficulty calling this
requirements. Does anyone else have a problem with calling this
... The content is pretty clear, but do we want to call the section 'requirements'? Or is it a non-issue?
<Jodi> I'm not sure it's a nonissue. But what else can it be called?
<Asaf> I do see your point
<emma> issues ?
TomB: "What needs to be done?" is another possibility
<GordonD> What needs to be done +1
<Jodi> agree w/Gordon: +1 to What needs to be done -- but offline discussion will help
<emma> +1, at least that's clear !
TomB: Alright, let's take this offline for further discussion
TomB: This is the section that we want to spend the most time on today.
<antoine> someone wants to jump in?
TomB: Antoine, Jeff, Marcia, William, would anyone like to jump in and introduce this?
<Jodi> (deafening silence...)
Antoine: I sent an email to the list
on the status of the "LLD vocabularies and datasets" deliverable. We are focusing on the deliverable first, before focusing on the "available data" section of the report
Antoine: This draft, for the
moment, contains 2 main sections. The first is on metadata element sets.
Every metadata element set mentioned in the use cases is given a short description -- a 1 line description, its xmlns name space, and a link to the use cases which mention it.
These are metadata element sets like Dublin Core, VOID, SKOS, ...
... Many of these element sets are connected together. Some reuse others; some specialize others.
... This is a crucial element of having these elements published as LD, for the data consumer or for the people who are managing these elements sets.
Antoine: The graph is a draft -- just a drawing to show what we are aiming at. We will follow the conventions set by Bernard and his colleagues (see link)
<GordonD> +1 Mondeca stuff
Antoine: We also have some
Metadata Element Sets that are not yet LD, some not even being
worked on at the moment. Should we include those
in the same way as the LD elements? Feedback welcome!
... We also have some questions on MODS and PREMIS -- what is the status of these for the moment? Does anyone know?
<Jodi> Maybe the metadata element sets that aren't yet LD should go into requirements/what needs to be done?
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that I put a placeholder in the document at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Definitions_and_scope for defining
TomB: I took the liberty of
putting in a placeholder at the beginning of the document, for
definitions and scope
... someplace in this deliverable we need to refer to the metadata element set, value vocabulary, and dataset.
... Those definitions are already on the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Definitions
Antoine: Yes, it makes sense to have this
at the start, we had this in
... The second section is on value vocabularies and datasets: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset#Value_vocabularies_and_Datasets
... both of them are grouped here because we want to position that section together with the CKAN LLD group
... The CKAN group is dealing with both value vocabularies and datasets. This may not be practical for the deliverable, but it's what we started with.
... A bit of a presentation with the LLD group
Antoine: William has started to visualize the content of the CKAN LLD group as a cloud, to make it analogous to the LOD cloud, but focused on the library domain.
<ww> at the moment, i am re-adding in the void part so that we can easily work with inter-dataset links and such
Antoine: Your input would be
welcome here. The screenshot here is William's idea, and he's
continuing to work on it:
... One idea is to make links between the datasets explicit. Please share other ideas!
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that the text in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_terminology_informally_explained#Definitions is more detailed than text already in
Antoine: This should give a nice
overview of what is published already, so then we want to dive
into each dataset and value vocabulary, similar to what was
done in the first section for the metadata element sets
... We were lucky to be able to reuse Marcia's webpage which already describes many of these value vocabularies.
... There's more work left for the second section, we'll populate this in the next couple of weeks.
... We have a bit of hesitation: Should we list everything that's in the LLD cloud (even though it might not be mentioned in the use cases)? Should we list everything that's mentioned in the use cases, even if it's not in LLD yet?
... So far, we want to make explicit what's available already AND what's not yet available. Opinions/feedback welcome!
... Finally for the datasets we'll give descriptions, but reuse is more limited, so we'll focus less on describing them.
... For a newcomer, reuse is more key.
... For example instance data about books may not be as interesting.
... Opinions welcome!
TomB: For the final step, will this be published in HTML or a wiki document?
Antoine: An HTML document would be ideal, reusing the W3C Group Note template.
TomB: Is there a nice routine for converting from wiki to HTML template?
Antoine: Not sure -- W3C doesn't have wiki templates.
TomB: A practical issue is that a lot of the links are wiki links which need to be converted into hyperlinks, etc
<Jodi> There should be general converters from MediaWiki to HTML which could give a start... then hand-finish.
Antoine: We'll need to check
these to figure out where things go (final report vs. separate
deliverable) as well.
... Let's move back to getting feedback?
... The first area for suggestions is about the graphs. We think we can do some interesting stuff. Suggestions?
... Tom and Jodi already started a discussion about the possible links and their meaning. There are several approaches to make links and represent them.
Antoine: The second area for feedback is the description grain. Are these descriptions sufficient?
TomB: Somebody on last week's call--William?--talked about using visigraph. Is that related to this cloudgraph?
TomB: So there are tools for doing this.
Antoine: Given William's contribution for the CKAN LLD cloud, the technical aspects should be straightforward.
<ww> using protovis
Antoine: We have two other important
questions (beyond the two above):
... First, are there things you think are crucial that should be covered?
<Uldis> tools for converting MediaWiki pages into other formats: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Alternative_parsers
<ww> what i want to do, and should shortly have enough information to, is (1) make links explicit within that big circle, (2) have non-lld datasets that are linked to be outside the big circle, and linked... if that meks sense
<ww> it'll take a bit of protovis fiddling obviously
Antoine: Finally, we want feedback on categorization. We're considering reorganizing by topic/coverage. We would like group feedback on this.
<marcia> *Antoine: thanks!
TomB: One way of getting input from the community would be to post to public-lld to ask about the coverage. e.g. Are there reference vocabularies that are missing? To get more people to look at it.
<jeff_> Thanks Antoine
TomB: Any more discussion on the available data section?
<marcia> *ww: Do you mean the open source software at: http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/? thanks.
TomB: Is there already a wiki page for the section that will go into the final report? If not, should we create one?
TomB: It looks like it will have a few pointers, a few representative datasets, and a summary of the longer deliverable. Is that right?
<TomB> ww, thank you for the explanation!
Antoine: There's no wiki page yet. The
listserv message talks about this a little
... Identifying gaps will be important, we can link with issues or recommendations to make sure that the gaps are listed there, or make a separate section of issues/recommendations, but this depends on other sections and on their separate deliverables.
<ww> marcia: yes
Antoine: It will be way easier to create this once we have a visualization of the datasets and how they are related, and a categorization of the value vocabularies.
<ww> same as what the mondeca folks and edsu use for these sorts of things
<marcia> ww: thank you!
<TomB> +1 having a nice graph will really help!
Antoine: For FRBR, for instance, there are 4-5 ontologies available
<Jodi> -- so not just gaps but *choices* need to be taken into account>
TomB: So you envision directly
plugging some of these issues into the other issues
... These documents are editable by everyone in the group, so that would be one way to do that
... Thank you, Antoine, I think having a graphic will really help in presenting that material.
TomB: What is the idea of the
"relevant technologies" section? To have something high-level,
with simple typology of tools, and pointers to maintained
lists. And of course a disclaimer that "this is not
exhaustive"--it will go out of date. Is that right?
... Do you envision this as a separate deliverable?
Jeff: I can envision a paragraph
that does this.
... I can draft something about this this afternoon.
... Not yet clear whether we point to maintained lists or create a separate section
TomB: I would envision doing that as a wiki page, even if it's a paragraph or two, then we can put it in as a section of the report outline.
Jeff: ok, "RelevantTechnology"
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff to create a wiki page on "RelevantTechnology" and link it to the report outline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/14-lld-minutes.html#action05]
TomB: See also the Tool category of the wiki: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Tool
TomB: There is an action on Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP to elaborate on a general purpose IT architecture. What is the status of that?
Jeff: This was in the back of my
mind when I was creating the tools page.
... The 'relevant technologies' is sort of a disclaimer that there *is* no coherent architecture, other than the Web standards.
TomB: Could the points you want to make here be folded into the Relevant Technologies section?
<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
TomB: This will be an aspect of RelevantTechnologies
TomB: Kevin and Joachim have written a note on potential LLD Web services: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD
Joachim: Had a dentist
... Let's do this next time.
TomB: Daniel is working on the Use Case report, it's coming along nicely.
TomB: I moved around the structure
of the draft report.
... We're in wind-up stage, and we're running out of time for outreach
... I gathered up the raw material, moved them to the end of the report, to see more clearly what parts were actively being worked on.
... Are there any links in here which are being actively worked on? (from the Community building, outreach, related activities and resources section)
... Or can we park these links?
... I created a section of the wiki "Intermediate Deliverables" and listed a lot of these documents there so that they don't get lost, but so that they're not actually on our active agenda.
<antoine> Seems alright...
<Jodi> need to look at these, but seems reasonable from a first glance
<Asaf> Do we have any "review readers" or "advance copies" thing going on?
TomB: We don't have review readers now, but next week or the week after we will start assigning reviewers to various sections. It feels to me like the individual groups still need a little more time to polish their sections.
<Asaf> sure, that sounds good.
TomB: I think it would be a little premature to start sending them out for review.
TomB: I take silence as rough consent that I haven't made any blunders in putting these links at the end of the agenda. Look forward to talking to you all next week!