12:48:23 RRSAgent has joined #lld 12:48:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-irc 12:49:30 rrsagent, please make record public 12:50:11 Chair: Emmanuelle, Tom, Antoine 12:51:53 Present: Tom, Ray, Mark, Antoine, Karen, Jeff, Emmanuelle 13:01:37 paulwalk has joined #lld 13:01:54 Locah Project blog post: http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/locah/ 13:01:55 Jeff has joined #lld 13:02:39 rayd has joined #lld 13:02:41 kcoyle has joined #lld 13:06:30 antoine has joined #lld 13:07:28 markva has joined #lld 13:09:49 INC_LLDXG(INC_LLDXG)8:30AM has now started 13:09:50 topic list for today 13:09:56 +[IPcaller] 13:10:12 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics 13:10:13 topic list was created as a placeholder originally 13:10:20 sakim, IPcaller is me 13:10:25 zakim, IPcaller is me 13:10:25 +antoine; got it 13:10:26 no is good time to figure it out 13:10:48 some relate to use cases, some are short and we haven't figured them out etc 13:11:08 TomB has joined #lld 13:11:25 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html TomB 13:11:45 discussion should be deliverable oriented, focused discussion 13:11:58 classify discussion into three areas 13:12:12 1. 13:12:21 charper has joined #lld 13:12:32 2. requirements 13:12:52 issues not in use cases 13:13:05 3. deliverables. things we can achieve 13:13:29 1. c overed by use cases. 13:13:46 michaelp has joined #lld 13:14:05 rrsagent, bookmark 13:14:05 See http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-irc#T13-14-05 13:14:10 zakim, this will be lld 13:14:10 ok, TomB, I see INC_LLDXG(INC_LLDXG)8:30AM already started 13:14:15 Meeting: LLD XG 13:14:21 Chair: Emmanuelle 13:14:34 rrsagent, please make record public 13:15:20 new topics might be created in the course of this discussion 13:15:29 for example, recommended software 13:15:37 LarsG has joined #lld 13:16:12 kai has joined #lld 13:16:29 first topic, knowledge representation 13:16:52 GordonD has joined #lld 13:17:48 all about which vocabularies we are using. 13:18:58 mikep: doesn't fit with a particular use case. 13:20:32 TomB has joined #lld 13:20:47 ...they are all about how we represent our domain knowledge 13:20:49 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/F2F_Pittsburgh 13:21:03 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html TomB 13:21:14 frsad, for example, has simple model how do we represent that, event or concept 13:21:38 a knowledge representation question 13:22:09 emanuelle: how to model domain 13:22:16 marcia has joined #lld 13:22:48 emanuelle: do we want to do in group, or is it for future. 13:24:22 marcia: more than one way to do it. decision to be made by people who assign subject terms 13:24:43 Present+: Alexander, Kai, Gordon, Lars 13:24:50 FRSAD 13:25:51 Michael: One of the main ideas of semantic Web: use a URI for real stuff. 13:26:42 FRSAD is a conceptual model. SKOS can be used to implment the model. But there are two options: SKOS only (lables are properties of a concept) or SKOS + extension for labels 13:27:37 antoine: hard to go into this detail for every model. 13:27:55 Gordon: Generally, we should be recommending VESes as ranges. 13:28:16 gordon: general good practice for linked data. range should be a URI. 13:29:04 emma: need best practice for modelling. is it possible to do this in our timeframe. 13:29:37 mikeB: reqiurement rather than best practice 13:31:43 Marcia: Differentiate label - FRSAD - SKOS-XL. SKOS without XL works for some vocabularies. We should say: "Here are the two approaches". 13:32:51 s/mikeB/michaelp 13:32:58 Marcia: present different recipes for people to decide. 13:33:07 non bibliographic data 13:33:17 marma has joined #lld 13:33:30 SKOS eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL) http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl 13:33:45 there is one circulation and an identifier use case 13:34:31 emma: rec. dev. is outside our scope. there are plenty of statistical ontologies 13:34:39 Emma: If a vocabulary is missing, we can point it out. 13:35:25 gordon: appl profile for collection description. 13:35:26 anybody interested in statistics models should look at http://publishing-statistical-data.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/specs/src/main/html/index.html 13:35:49 Gordon: There is a Dublin Core application profile for Collection Description - http://dublincore.org/groups/collections/collection-application-profile/ 13:36:23 gordon: there are models in other domains, we don't have to invent everything 13:36:33 next: citations 13:36:48 use cases 13:37:05 next application profiles 13:38:10 tom: requirement to clarify what an app profile is and that there are different approaches, point to one or two, some issues 13:38:25 karen: a small number of methodologies 13:38:35 Karen: Libraries should try to converge on some common application profiles. 13:39:07 antoine: wonder whether previous item, frs, should be with app profiles. 13:40:01 tom: should there be something on isbd? 13:40:09 gordon: yes 13:40:20 karen: isnt isbd itself an app model 13:40:31 gordon: no it's a data model 13:40:32 ISBD is a data model 13:41:14 gordon: its flat, premarc, no concept of authority data 13:41:23 Suggest that we mention role of application profiles not only in ISBD but in RDA. 13:41:55 marcia: applic. profile is more like what steps you need to follow 13:42:28 tom: role of this group not to say it's one or the other (other being syntax) but point out areas like rda etc 13:44:34 Question was if APs are sets of documentations, or APs are technical specifications to be implmented. 13:44:51 john: "style" of appl. profile?. 13:45:54 next legacy data, first subtopic inventory available linked data 13:46:35 gordon: maintenance issue, anything we identify will be out of date soon 13:47:47 tom: do it on fringes but not a core activity 13:48:30 next vocabularies statuses 13:48:47 gordon: moving targets 13:50:14 karen: difficult for us to know what's being developed and we need better communication channel. 13:51:50 next Translation of data in MARC format to linked data 13:52:39 mike: translation of data or translation of marc? 13:52:53 latter 13:53:42 "should marc have an rdf representation" 13:54:35 gordon: at least half dozen efforts, experimental, group should take note of that 13:55:31 next Populating reference data models when legacy data is not perfectly fitting 13:55:35 My understanding of this discussion: In Gordon's update of status of new RDF vocabularies (FRBR, etc) - comment on desirability (or not) of expressing the MARC model in RDF 13:57:00 ...in addition to the issue of converting MARC records into RDF (not necessarily using an RDF representation of MARC) 13:57:18 Scribenick: markva 13:57:23 Scribe: Mark van Assem 13:57:52 rrsagent, please draft minutes 13:57:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html antoine 13:58:12 GordonD: frbr is 4 records instead of one 13:58:24 ... application profile bridges gap 13:58:45 Gordon: Coming around to thinking: MARC to RDF triples, then build it into an ISBD record, or whatever. The promise of linked data, focus shifts from record to statement. Application profile fills the gap. Break down, then build back up. 13:59:04 next [LLD. COMMON-MODEL] 13:59:22 is same as previous 14:00:01 next [LLD. AUTHORITIES] is in use cases 14:00:56 TomB: problem with wording of the Topic, entities = vocabulaires? 14:01:30 kcoyle: SKOS is handy to put authorities into 14:02:13 alex: already have FRAD 14:02:36 GordonD: authority data is about labels, not entities themselves 14:03:03 Jeff: but SKOS (XL) does both 14:03:52 kcoyle: were two separate databases; in this new world how we model that 14:03:58 emma: req or not? 14:04:08 kcoyle: comes up in use cases 14:04:23 GordonD: it's about bib entities vs. real world entities 14:04:26 Gordon: The issue here is bibliographic entities versus real-world entities. 14:04:47 michaelp: this is what KR topic is about we discussed in begin 14:04:47 Michael: LD challenges our notion that biblio entities are completely cut off from real-world entities. 14:05:28 michaelp: litmus test for FRs 14:05:45 Michael: "crossing the streams" - challenges us to think of authority files in a different way. 14:06:13 GordonD: is there 1-1 relationship between entities and bib enty within semweb? 14:06:41 emma: put it in deliverable 14:06:54 Karen: Used to be a database in the back room. 14:06:56 s/enty/entity/ 14:07:35 Data is here: http://libris.kb.se/data/auth/220040?format=text%2Frdf%2Bn3 14:07:45 Jeff: In VIAF, we are identifying a person as a concept - Martin suggested using FOAF. 14:07:54 Martin, is that correct? 14:07:56 Antoine: keep the two topics separate 14:08:18 .. be aware that authority data diff of real world 14:08:27 .. then how to articulate link 14:08:48 .. separate issue and practical solutions, patterns, and cases that use them 14:08:50 Martin suggested to use foaf:focus to link the foaf:person to skos:concept 14:09:18 Thank you, Marcia. 14:10:08 s/we are identifying a person as a concept// 14:10:14 .. observable in VIAF, produce skos:Concept and foaf:Person from same piece of data 14:10:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html TomB 14:10:48 next [LLD. SPECIFIC-VOCABS] 14:11:49 next [LLD. SKOS-FOR-INTEGRATED-KOS] 14:12:06 what's integrated? 14:12:23 marcia: making connections between vocabs; alignments 14:12:58 marcia: generate superstructure behind linked vocabularies, like UMLS and HILT 14:13:57 marcia: use case bernard and gordon from user point of view find things without being aware of underlying diff vocabs 14:14:46 marcia: available tool or facility; still gap if it's not linked data 14:15:03 kcoyle: include in use case exploration: 14:15:29 GordonD: existing research into relations that appeared 14:15:40 .. SKOS rejected this amount of detail 14:15:54 .. not adequate for use case in cluster of vocab merging 14:16:33 .. is requirement for more complicated model than SKOS, to provide linked data representations to provide terminology services to users 14:16:34 Gordon: awhile ago, a group came up with 15 relations for vocabulary alignment. SKOS looked at this and rejected the complexity. But there is a requirement for something more complex than SKOS, particularly in the subject area, in order to provide terminology services to end users. 14:17:28 marcia: could be use case based on that 14:18:00 Marcia: Terminology mapping backend - available terminology registries - already there, but no link yet with Linked data environment. 14:18:05 emma: put in use case 14:18:29 michaelp: terminology registry use case or a mapping use case? 14:19:11 GordonD: use case that refers to existing research papers; it's well-researched, e.g. HIILT reports 14:19:20 Gordon: This problem has been well-researched, HILT conference on interoperability - show the complexity. 14:20:10 GordonD: we can re-use the SKOS use case for HILT 14:20:23 Gordon: Look at the SKOS Use cases and cite them here - also important in establishing the relationship between SKOS and ... 14:20:39 ACTION: GordonD and antoine to study use cases that relate to vocabulary merging use case 14:21:44 next [LLD. SKOS-MULTILINGUAL] is a use case 14:22:22 next [LLD. SKOS-LIB-KOS] in deliverables 14:22:41 michaelp: is it about what's been done or what difficulties are 14:22:53 GordonD: it's what me and antoine just agreed to look at 14:23:26 next [LLD. PERSON-NAMES] 14:23:46 rayd: covered in my use case 14:24:09 emma: put in deliverables together with authority data 14:24:20 antoine: and refer from there to use cases 14:24:47 antoine: use cases can be moved into requirements if turns out it was not done 14:26:03 ... merge person-names and person-metadata 14:26:19 next LLD. IDENTIFIERS] is use case 14:27:06 next [LLD. LEGACY-IDS] is requirement 14:27:34 kcoyle: issue e.g. ISBN for manifestation; need to give advice 14:27:42 .. think about what ID means 14:28:16 TomB: LCSH cite as example 14:28:39 LarsG: related to digital preservation 14:28:52 .. can of worms; need reqs or recommendations 14:29:15 GordonD: need to expose it as can of worms 14:29:29 mmmm, worms 14:29:38 next [LLD. NAMESPACES] 14:29:50 into requirements 14:30:34 TomB: ld principle that URI resolve to representation 14:30:45 antoine: could we refer to webarch? 14:30:57 TomB: part of TBL's four points 14:31:31 LarsG: not particular topic for lld 14:31:45 emma: do we need to address namespace policy? 14:32:15 TomB: yes, libraries should have persistence policies, and principles for vocab evolution 14:32:30 .. can URI be repurposed? can meaning evolve? 14:33:06 kcoyle: issue what do you do with multiple copies? how do you identify them? 14:33:36 .. important part of structure people need to understand; lot in here that people need to understand so that they do proper LD 14:34:00 antoine: nothing library-specific about it 14:34:16 kcoyle: libraries bring up interesting cases 14:34:43 .. library experience should inform web experience 14:36:15 marcia: other communities gathering resources have no clear roadmap 14:36:20 ??: 14:36:59 antoine: for the moment URIs not an option, after a while URIs are dead 14:37:08 .. library practice in web context is poor 14:37:15 .. we cannot improve that 14:37:27 emma: should say that practice should be better 14:37:57 LarsG: put persistent identification and resolution services into requirements 14:48:58 emma has joined #lld 15:07:17 zakim, who is here? 15:07:17 On the phone I see antoine 15:07:18 On IRC I see emma, marma, TomB, GordonD, michaelp, charper, markva, antoine, kcoyle, paulwalk, RRSAgent, Zakim, ww, edsu 15:07:56 scribe: Michael 15:08:01 scribenick: michaelp 15:08:20 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:08:20 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html antoine 15:10:04 Ijon has joined #lld 15:11:08 scribenick: michaelp 15:11:36 emma: Next section: Semantic web environment and issues 15:12:12 s/environment and issues/environmental issues 15:12:32 ... Group with requirements 15:12:41 ... Next: Linking across datasets 15:13:40 ... What links to what? Group with inventory of datasets in deliverables 15:14:19 Jeff: People could still use OWl to show waht is being linked without relying on an inventory 15:14:28 s/waht/what 15:14:56 Jeff: Self-description using OWL without defining new level of properties 15:15:22 emma: Next: Alignment of vocabs 15:15:55 antoine: Related to previous discussions about skos mapping properties 15:16:15 GordonD: Also about mapping models that are independent of SKOS 15:16:35 ... They are different mapping approaches 15:16:36 marcia has joined #lld 15:16:44 s/They/There 15:16:58 emma: Next: Alignment of real-world-resource identifiers 15:17:18 ... Environmental issue 15:17:27 Antoine: Put into cases for future action 15:17:35 ... Bernard might investigate 15:18:13 RayD: about alignment or assignment? 15:18:19 charper has joined #lld 15:18:56 antoine: Relating library authority file concepts to identifiers for the real thing 15:19:08 kcoyle: What is meant with alignment? 15:19:19 ... Bringing together if there is more than one? 15:19:33 TomB: And specifying realtionsjip between tham 15:19:37 s/tham/them 15:19:51 emma: Next one: The Linked Data paradigm and the Metadata Record paradigm 15:20:06 ... Models for packaging Linked Data in records, e.g., Named Graphs 15:20:17 .. and Provenance of Linked Data 15:20:57 Jeff: Mikael email indicates a lot of tension between metadata models and domain models. 15:21:09 ... Lot of confusion between these paradigms 15:21:23 s/Mikael/Mikael's 15:21:32 ACTION: Tom to re-categorize AGRIS under Bibliographic Data. 15:21:48 ... How can we help people to think in these paradigms? 15:22:10 kcoyle: Educational vs. proof of concept. These are two different goals. 15:22:39 ... Can we create the data we want to create without using the records paradigm. 15:23:10 John: I don't think we can create data in absence of a record model. 15:23:49 ... Creation, dissemination, and consumption. 15:24:14 ... Latter two can happen without record. First one cannot. 15:24:42 antoine: Some of the choices about the right URI in LD look like record building. 15:25:26 ... Even on the basic level about which triples you send out. 15:26:11 marcia: Do you mean the presence of an application profile at the time of creation 15:26:17 Jeff has joined #lld 15:26:30 Jeff has left #lld 15:26:38 Jeff has joined #lld 15:26:47 Diane: Can we use aggregated view instead of record view? 15:27:11 GordonD: Catalogers create a package of descriptions. 15:27:36 Diane: We need to carefully examine those assumptions. 15:28:07 ... Catalogers don't start from nothing and arrive at something that they consider complete. 15:28:24 packaging in linked data dissemination context -> http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/ 15:28:34 GordonD: Rarely info in record is created from scratch 15:28:47 ... Reliance on external authority and other sources 15:29:17 Marcia: From the abstract mode a record is an aggregate of other description sets. 15:29:22 s/mode/model 15:30:19 ?: But, if things are added, can this info be consumed back into your aggregated set? 15:30:40 GordonD: Triples will be out there. Aggregation will happen on the fly. 15:30:51 emma: We have to cut her.e 15:31:01 ... It is in the requirements. 15:31:07 s/her.e/here 15:31:10 Gordon: Moving to a "post-coordinated" approach. 15:31:11 s/her.e/here 15:31:27 emma: provenance 15:31:49 kcoyle: It is an requirement. Not specific to LLD. 15:32:14 antoine: We can put it in the use case and probably look at the work of the provenance task group. 15:33:07 emma: We can extract some requirements if we put it in the use case category. 15:33:25 Kai: Strongly related to the record / description set issue. 15:33:39 emma: Next: REST patterns for Linked Data 15:34:07 Jeff: Based on OWL, there is a one-to-many relationship between things 15:34:18 ... This should be visible in the URI patterns. 15:34:39 ... So they become hackable and provide for content-negotion 15:34:52 ... All the way back to real-world objects 15:35:05 Jeff: URIs can be made hackable. I like using generic resources. As you hack back, go from representation to generic resource. Hack back on the slash, go back to... etc etc 15:35:08 emma: Is related to best practice for indentifiers. 15:35:54 Michael: This can be visualized in one slide. 15:36:16 antoine: This belongs to SW-Indentifier 15:36:26 TomB: Best practice or research? 15:36:54 antoine: Best practice, comparable to best practice document for eGovernment 15:37:51 Jeff: Sometimes wrong URI patterns limit your choices, eg, for mobile presentation 15:38:04 ... We shouldn't have to write one-off systems. 15:38:23 ... We shpould create a framework that generates those pattern automatically. 15:38:46 Alexander: Agreed. If we can agree on ID patterns, that would be helpful to others in the community 15:39:15 TomB: I am uneasy about this group saying "we think this is the answe" 15:39:41 edsu: Cool URIs for the semantic web defines the URI patterns just fine. 15:39:55 Ed: To me, Cool URIs defines the pattern - no need to do it again. 15:40:18 Michael: But that is very low-level. Does not deal with relationship between organized knowledge and the world (in detail). 15:40:36 Alex: Do we also consider patterns for modeling data? 15:40:50 Emma: No, it is in application profiles. 15:40:58 Alexander: Patterns not the same as application profiles. 15:41:08 Alex: Software engineering perspective: things that tell me on a basic level. 15:41:41 emma: Created the topic "patters" and added it to requirements. 15:41:59 ACTION: Jeff to review the UK eGovernment document on identifiers. 15:42:23 antoine: Jeff to elaborate on the document 15:42:33 emma: Next: Conversion issues, e.g., URIs, content negotiation, RDF compatibility 15:42:58 Kcoyle: Don't know what it means. Very broad. 15:43:07 Antoine: Could we trash it? 15:43:11 emma: OK 15:43:23 ... Next: Check if SKOS extensions are needed for describing particular types of KOS (term list, name authority file (not limited to agents and works), digital gazetteer, list of subject headings, taxonomy, thesauri, classification, etc.) and provide SKOSified KOS examples. 15:43:53 ... Related to Gordon's and Antoine's UC? 15:44:08 Antone: This is more realted to KOS alignment. 15:44:45 Emma: Maybe we have a gap here in the use cases. 15:45:12 ... We need a use case about the appropriateness of SKOS to cover controlled vocabularies in LLD. 15:45:22 Antoine: Some is covered in postponed SKOS issues. 15:45:35 Emma: Should check there. 15:45:51 Antoine: We should put it in the vocabulary section. 15:46:02 Emma: Next: extraction of semantic data 15:46:54 kcoyle: Perhaps Marcia can explain what is meant her.e 15:47:23 seems like the url for that spec from the UK about URL patterns has moved or been removed, it used to be at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/cio/chief_technology_officer/public_sector_ia.aspx 15:49:06 definitely ironic :-) 15:49:33 marcia: The original email was about a framework of showing things. 15:49:43 ahh, here's the new url for it http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/301253/puiblic_sector_uri.pdf 15:50:04 kcoyle: Let's put it in the deliverables so we remember to look at it when we prepare deliverable.s 15:50:22 emma: next: linked data management, hosting, and preservation 15:50:32 ... vocabulary-specific aspects of management, hosting, and presentation 15:50:55 kcoyle: related to discussion about metadata registries. We need use case. 15:51:01 emma: Put it in use case. 15:51:11 ... Next: Versioning, updates 15:51:31 kcoyle: Next three go together. We need a use case for all of them. 15:51:40 ... Dissemination mechanisms: RDF schemas, RDFa, bulk download, feeds, SPARQL... 15:52:02 ... DCMI-RDA task group would be a great use case. 15:52:15 GordonD: Many issues have surfaced there. 15:52:25 emma: ssues of Web architecture, e.g., persistent URI design best practices, HTTP 15:52:33 s/ssues/Issues 15:52:57 Alexander: I don't see pattern as architecture patterns, more like modeling recommendations. 15:53:23 ... We should tell peoples about our experiences with our modeling. 15:53:37 emma: Should it be a use case? 15:54:18 kcoyle: We can require things that we don't know how to do. 15:54:28 ... It could be a requirement. 15:54:37 emma: Related to "data caching"? 15:54:54 Alexander: Broader context. Ingestions, dissemination. 15:55:35 ... I want to have a library system that is able to deal with linked data together with classical library data 15:55:39 Marcia has joined #lld 15:55:41 Mark: Does that exist? 15:55:46 Alexander: No. 15:56:04 Mark: We have that covered in software recommendation. 15:56:22 Alexander: Not so much the issue what to use, but how to use the tools. 15:56:37 ... The IT departments have systems that are going to stay there for a long time. 15:57:06 ... We have to come up with ways with doing new stuff with existing infrastructure. 15:57:22 ... We are generating LD at runtime. This is not the right approach. 15:57:39 Scribenick:Jeff 15:57:43 Scribe: Jeff 15:57:51 rrsagent, please draft agent 15:57:51 I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft agent', antoine. Try /msg RRSAgent help 15:57:57 rrsagent, please draft minutes 15:57:57 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html antoine 15:58:00 Jeff: I care about that also 15:58:05 Martin: Me also. 15:58:18 ... Perhaps we can do something togethe.r 16:00:44 ACTION: Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP elaborabe on general purpose IT archtiecture for dealing with linked data with caching feature 16:01:04 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Topics#DATA._Management_of_data_and_distribution 16:01:14 Ontology discovery and dissemination [DATA. ONTOLOGY-DISCOVERY] 16:02:21 kcoyle: covered in registry part, discovery part, vocabulary, need a way to find ontologies 16:02:59 Present+: Martin, Jeff, Michael, Jon, Marcia, Ray, Paul 16:03:10 rrsagent, please draft minutes 16:03:10 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/10/24-lld-minutes.html antoine 16:04:02 marcia: difference between vocabularies/ontologies. format-related 16:05:58 kcoyle: different perspectives on vocabularies: things divided into class, instance, properties, (ontologies?) vs. different vocabularies naming concepts 16:06:10 kcoyle: no vocabulary of vocabularies 16:06:45 kcoyle: need to be clear about what we mean when we use the term "vocabulary" 16:06:52 # Search Engine Optimization for Library Data Google Rich Snippets, Yahoo SearchMonkey, Facbook's OpenGraph Protocol [edsu, jphipps] [DATA. SEARCH-OPTIMISATION] 16:07:22 alexander: seems to be close to architecture topic 16:08:19 jphipps has joined #lld 16:08:36 antoine: these systems may be able to understand library models in the future 16:08:56 emma: this needs a use case 16:09:40 antoine: Europeana wants to put RDFa in HTML 16:09:55 facebook's rdfa has a notion of book, author, movie http://opengraphprotocol.org/ 16:09:57 TomB: is there a role of application profiles in search (e.g. Google) 16:10:15 also isbn :-) 16:11:28 antoine: if you search Google for a book, you will get a Google Book results near the time. It has special status. 16:11:46 s/time/top 16:12:14 off current topic... http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/301253/puiblic_sector_uri.pdf 16:12:38 ACTION; Emma and Antoine to create use case DATA.SEARCH-OPTIMIZATION 16:12:39 thanks jon 16:13:02 * Licenses, IP, DRM, other availability/rights/access restriction info [antoine, kcoyle, emmanuelle, aseiler] [MGT. LICENSES] 16:13:47 michael: related to provenance and rights discovery 16:14:10 antoine: need common way (RDF) to discover these things 16:14:42 kcoyle: need a use case for provenance and rights 16:14:50 # Workflows or roadmaps for different kinds Linked Data projects [keckert, emmanuelle] [MGT. WORKFLOWS] 16:15:08