See also: IRC log
<antoine> Previous: 2011-04-14 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/14-lld-minutes.html
<antoine> Scribe: Monica
<antoine> Scribenick: monica
<rsinger> TomB: i note you noting the benefits doc
<Jodi> TomB: I guess you tried refreshing already?
<rsinger> somewhere other than the "developers" section?
RESOLVED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/14-lld-minutes.html
schedule of telcons
antoine: any comments?
<kai> +1 would have to send regrets otherwise :-)
<TomB> @rsinger - exited from the document - is there a URL for just "viewing" the document?
<rsinger> TomB: i don't think you can just view it -- i'm not editing now, so feel free to go back in
<TomB> @rsinger - gotta follow the discussion now... - will look at it after the call
antoine:decided telcon on 28 is cancelled
antoine: Harry Halpin to introduce
the newly-launched community groups at W3C
... will enable inclusion with wider scope of participants
... e.g. library community
... we should have a couple of weeks to preprare
... any questions? now or on list
... we will know more once Harry has presented
<emma> Asia Pacific Telecon on April 28th
<pmurray> I can pick up scribing.
<rsinger> antoine: you got all echoey
<Jodi> yes, there's echo here now too
<kcoyle> yes, getting echo from you
<kcoyle> now it's gone
<TomB> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0044.html - Asia-Pacific call
<emma> TomB: Asia Pacific telecon will be on 27th / 28th april
<emma> ... 13 people expected
<emma> ... agenda will be simple : sections of the report,
<Jodi> Here's the fixed time for the telcon: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=LLD&iso=20110427T21&p1=224&ah=1
<emma> ... open discussion during at least 20 minutes
<emma> ... please consider attending even if the time isn't convenient, bridge is reserved for 20 or 25 people
<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]
Antoine: Kim not here today
<Jodi> (Kim just emailed us to say that the transclusion doesn't make sense yet, and with regrets.)
scribe: Benefits http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Benefits
<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]
Antoine: there has only been one comment
<rsinger> i haven't
<emma> me neither
antoine: has there been any other feedback?
<TomB> +1 to drop the action
<pmurray> +1 -- action completed.
<rsinger> i mean, if they haven't responded yet
<antoine> 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] [DONE]
<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]
ross: this has been started on
the google doc
...any suggestions for how to boil down bullet points?
...this is all open for editing, but coming along
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask about the status of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0044.html and to ask about the status of http://piratepad.net/zsLh4nM3Pg
Tom: has this been copied over to the wiki?
... we only need one more discussion to conclude the deliverable
Tom: as a liaison from issues group - we think there are some issues that need to be introduced earlier
Ross: The double-edged sword of linked data?
Ross: To put out call on the mailing list
Antoine: Relevant technologies
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff to create a wiki page on "Relevant Technology" and link it to the report outline [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-lld-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]
IJeff: library-specific technologies - we might be better able to write tools if we knew our idioms better
Karen: what tools are we talking about - tools for programmers, metadata developers (e.g. metadata registry)
<antoine> Discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Apr/0072.html
Karen: needs to address those 3
... by breaking it out this way it will point out where the gaps are
... Karen offers help with this if needed
Antoine: notes good progress on this, thanks
<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]
Antoine: has the issue been addressed?
Jeff: yes e.g. caching difficult
to layer in
... but software layering is reflected
<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] [DONE]
Note on potential lld web services (Kevin, Joachim) http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD
Antoine: this was on an action on Joachim to report on progress
Joachim: we have finished that
action, have prepared the wiki page
... not so easy for people not acquainted with ?? to use RDF
... in lots of situation it is not so easy to provide technology
... example of use cases authority data
... similar services would support retrieval
Antoine: can this wiki page fit
into the developing technologies section?
... is it going in the same direction which Karen has described - group into categories
Antoine: could Joachim input into the categories
<TomB> +1 to boil down
joachim: currently too long,
would need to be boiled down
... on holiday for 2 weeks, difficult to take the action to co-ordinate
Antoine: could Kevin do it?
... no formal action recorded until we ask Kevin (Joachim to ask him)
... due to time constraints
<Jodi> much better! :)
Karen: we have two pages linking
to each other - issues and recommendations
... the two pages are important because they become the results
Karen: what we are saying is what
needs to happen
... in the group we have talked about posting individual (or small groups of related ones)
... so that people can comment on it
... an outline has already been written, on the wiki there is another level of detail
... generally the recommendations and issues have been broken out into 3 groups
... first group is managerial (education, costs)
... second group - moving library world out of its silo into a future mindset of being collaborative
... not just with cultural heritage but at least some input from general web community
... third category - library standards and practices change
... Any input?
<marcia> very good
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to ask if we skipped the ACTION: Gordon and Karen, under ISSUES
Tom: asking about the action on Karen and Gordon
Karen: I need to check and look
at it again
... keep the action for now
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about duplication of effort (Management)
Emma: wondering if this is
missing: issue of national libraries coordinating effort
... is there a role to manage duplicates
Karen: there is wording on de-duplication but your point is about not duplicating the effort
emma: also need to consider the costs
emma: that would be a management issue
<pmurray> There is mention in the recommendation about agreement on identifiers, which is a form of coordination.
Karen: that appears to be a
co-ordination issue e.g. how to find out that software already
exists, encourage open source etc
... also one thing we don't have here is something about discovery: of software, vocabularies Is this management?
Karen: or third section
... is this a high-level point? do all the sharing so we don't duplicate effort?
Tom: the patterns will point to
... thereis a danger in people just using search engines that focus on vocabularies
... could lead people to use vocabularies in patterns that do not match usage patterns
... I want to encourage discovery in the context of usage pattern, best practice
... there are different styles for documenting patterns and the community has no agreed way to document patterns
Ed: we want to encourage good patterns and findability of vocabularies
Tom: it is also important to put vocabularies in context e.g. used more in this community
<Jodi> in a way, you have to be in contact with the community that uses a vocabulary in order to understand how it is used...
Tom: there is overlap and proliferation of vocabularies, alignment of vocabularies are needed otherwise new vocabularies will be used in the absence of mapping
Karen: vocabulary alignment is one of the recommendations
Tom: make them stronger
Jeff: wanted to mention ontology mapping we can still be interoperable without prescribing you must do it this way
<TomB> ontology mapping = alignments
Karen: experience from library world is that people standardise and share rather than re-invent or grab random things
Karen: more concerned about silos - we need to break out of these
<TomB> note to self: make sure we use the phrase "RDF silo" in this section
<Jodi> TomB: currently it's in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page#Linking_by_use_of_vocabularies
Karen: to all please make sure
that your issues are included here, if issues are not in the
issues page they will not show up in the recommendations
... check they are present and expressed as strongly as you think is needed
<TomB> @jodi - ah, I thought it was there somewhere - thanks!
Antoine: we have use case owners to check the issues list
Karen: if people find anything
missing, it is not too late to add to it
... not exactly another round, but we need these two pages to be representing the best of our thinking on this topic
... it is important that everyone in the group feels good about these pages
<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that this is why we want to push the individual points out to the mailing list one-by-one for comments
Tom: same point that Karen made, this is why we want to push out individual points in digestable pieces and get comments
Karen: which mailing list?
<pmurray> I think the community (public) list, too.
Antoine: would there be overwhelming response?
Karen: does anyone feel that we should not?
<pmurray> But when we use the public list, we diminish the chance of someone saying "you didn't listen to me!"
<edsu> +1 for using community list
Antoine: if you wish to do it does not object
<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about training/education
Emma: training, education there a
number of things in the issues and recommendations
... wondered if we should be more specific on who needs training in the library professionals. everyone?
... just cataloguers?
... very difficult to say
... who does it make sense to train?
<pmurray> I think understanding the principles is important for everyone, but training about the mechanics isn't needed by everyone.
<TomB> +1 good question on who needs to be trained
Karen: right now we are at a point that we do not have much to show to people e.g. at the reference desk e.g. would not want to show them formats
<TomB> "training the decision-makers" :-)
Emma: everyone needs to understand benefits
Karen: do we think training needs to be tailored to needs
<Zakim> Jodi, you wanted to mention recommendations are likely to be most read after executive report
Jodi: one reason we wanted comments on recommendations/issues was that they are most likely to be read, after the executive report
Jeff: : by making each of the recommendations tweakable - should we make a 120 character limit?
<edsu> lol (on mute)
<TomB> @pmurray lol
<Jodi> monica: most likely to be read, after the executive report
Antoine: : any other business?