See also: IRC log
<emma> Previous: 2011-08-04 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html
<antoine> Scribe: Ross
<antoine> Scribenick: rsinger
Minutes of previous telecons PROPOSED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html
<antoine> RESOLVED: To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html
-- Current, up-to-date compilation of all sections (note that sections
must be edited separately)
antoine: in general it seems
... could use input from others, but it's the right direction
emma: but it does include the new text from the vocabs section
antoine: prepared a shortened
introduction that could replace the longer one
... we can remove all of the sections of relevant datasets / put them on the end?
... I know this is not all completely clear :)
kcoyle: the section of relevant
technologies - none of those have introductions; they're very
... I don't believe it would fit in that area, stylistically
<antoine> My shortened intro: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section2
kcoyle: they are all very short statements, if there's more to be said, it should be an area with more detail
antoine: karen has a point
emma: i would prefer it as an appendix, opinions?
antoine: so do we prefer the longer or shorter introductory text?
kcoyle: this goes with the appendix on datasets and vocabularies?
antoine: i can produce three different version
kcoyle: I don't know that that's necessary, if it's in the appendix - we aren't limiting appendices' lengths
emma: I prefer the shorter version
kcoyle: the benefits we're keeping short, so people will read them -- it makes sense to let the appendices be longer, if people want to read them
<antoine> ACTION: Jodi to make an alternative transclusion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]
-- Maintained by volunteers responsible for
acknowledging and answering posted reviews
2011-07-23 to 2001-07-30: Daniel
2011-07-30 to 2001-08-11: Emma
2011-08-11 to 2001-08-18: ?
<scribe> ACTION: Emma to keep track of comments through AUG. 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]
emma: I did not include the vendors' comments in the tracking process
<scribe> ACTION: Editors of each section should watch for substantial comments to their section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/06/30-lld-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (tbd)
emma: this was due last week
kcoyle: I sent out an outline last week, with no response. Last night I wrote up a crude draft and it's in the transclusion, but still needs work
kcoyle: but if there's something there, other people might edit it
emma: There's nothing in the version
emma: this is the newest version, but Jodi said we should replace the old version
kcoyle: adding the Executive
Summary into it now
... now in both versions
... but not very good
emma: This should get review and comments on the list
kcoyle: we need to determine how
much detail to put into it
... And there should be another section, per TomB, about methodology
emma: Karen, could send a call on the list to solicit comments?
<scribe> ACTION: Karen, Tom, Michael, and Gordon to write the executive summary due in two weeks. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/21-lld-minutes.html#action05] [CONTINUES]
"LIBRARY LINKED DATA": SCOPE OF THIS REPORT (Karen, Peter, Tom, Gordon, Jodi)
antoine: back to the exec summary, I see that the benefits are under the executive summary
TomB: do we have a clear action on the methodology section?
<antoine> kcoyle: the benefits are not in the executive summary
TomB: I would like to propose we have a paragraph or two about this and you can give me an action
<scribe> ACTION: TomB to write the methodology paragraph [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/11-lld-minutes.html#action06]
emma: Any other comments?
... we can discuss the scope of the report
... We had a definition of "open data" which is now in discussion on the list
... does anybody have any comments? Otherwise, discuss on the list.
... no comment, moving on to the Benefits section
<kai> I consider it important, but on the list is ok
emma: Benefits editors met on
Tuesday: Ed, Emma and Tom (Ross absent)
... We didn't change the structure of the section
... some rewriting, parts were unclear
... Added a few items
emma: that is a diff between late
July and today
... most are editorial, removed Stone Soup
scribe: benefits to researchers,
benefits to organization, bottom up/top down
... benefits to librarians: data semantics, data structures
... benefits to developers and vendors: small addition
kcoyle: there is a point where
the part about semantics, "By making a clean distinction ...
linked data will be better". But it seems... it's making "use
of" the semantics, that sentence doesn't explain it - it makes
... if I think of something better, I'll make a change
emma: better standards, not better data
kcoyle: it makes me not understand that you want them both
<jeff_> how about "better vocabularies" rather than "better standards"?
TomB: This is a point that Gordon
was making: by making the distinction between semantic syntax ;
it makes the standards independent of the encoding or
... it's not intended to imply that it's not important, how to make standards that are more durable by making them independent of any data structure
kcoyle: that's not clear in the present wording
TomB: if that's not coming out, please add some ideas
<scribe> ACTION: Editors of BENEFITS to meet and work on the comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]
<scribe> ACTION: Karen will track items from former "issues" and "recommendations" that belong to benefits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]
AVAILABLE VOCABULARIES AND DATASETS (Antoine, Jeff, Marcia, William) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section
emma: Any comments?
emma: This is a set item, we can move on
RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES (Jeff) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
emma: This is now an appendix at the end
<antoine> we can drop the first action
emma: any comments on the two actions in the section?
<scribe> ACTION: everybody to scrutinize the relevant technologies to solve the issue of mixing different levels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/21-lld-minutes.html#action09] [DROPPED]
emma: Jeff any update on your
... no news (is good news)
<scribe> ACTION: Jeff to integrate more refined view of non-resolvable URIs and linking. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/21-lld-minutes.html#action08] [CONTINUES]
emma: we can use the rest of the
time to discuss the Social UC
... and push the other topics to next week
uldis: we have completed the
social use case cluster , the use cases are completed
... and there are summaries
uldis: we are looking forward to feedback and suggestions
emma: We need to include the new stuff in the use case report, I don't think it's been done
<antoine> it's done, as a draft
uldis: Yes, I think it was there
already, but it needs to be verified
... need to contact Daniel to add summary
emma: is this overlapping with your new pages?
uldis: that is the extracted
summaries, possibly more of a draft form. The use cases are
finished, but the summaries are more draft-ish
... Not a full list of use cases
... there are 4 that still need to be summarized
emma: would you add these 4 to the use case report? Or would you prefer Daniel to do it?
<antoine> I think Uldis and Jodi could take care of it.
uldis: it would be good to add, if Daniel could do it, it would be a fresh view
<antoine> ...I'm not sure he's really around the coming days...
<scribe> ACTION: Uldis, Jodi and Daniel to include the Social Use cases to the final report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/08/11-lld-minutes.html#action11]
<uldis> here are Social and Emergent Use Cases themselves:
emma: we only have 5 minutes, so I'm not sure it's worth discussing the challenges and barriers section
<uldis> there were also changes to the Social Uses Cluster page
<uldis> mainly in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Cluster_Social_Uses#Problems_and_Limitations + relevant technologies / vocabs
antoine: There are some comments that have not been addressed, but that will not make it shorter
<marcia> Linking across datasets has begun but requires further effort and coordination
kcoyle: the linking across
datasets is long and detailed and does fit into the other
... the details should be moved to the appendix
antoine: that may actually unbalance the appendix
kcoyle: there should be one, short explanatory paragraph for each point
antoine: paragraphs around data availability won't change? or won't change much?
TomB: I wanted to add that the
data availability points do belong in that section, but they
don't fit with the rest of the section
... it's not that i think it's too long, but it belongs there in a shorter form
... moving it to the appendix would solve the problem
emma: any other topics for
... meeting adjourned.
<jneubert> thanks and bye