LLD XG -- 25 Nov 2010

<emma> Previous: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/11/18-lld-minutes.html

<ww> Zakim: ??P6 is me

<ww> Zakim: P6 is me

<emma> Scribe: Monica

<emma> scribenick: monica

PROPOSED: To accept minutes of previous telecon: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/11/18-lld-minutes.html

Admin

ACCEPTED

Topic PITTSBURGH MEETING - RESULTS

<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/FinalReportOutline

Emma: Outline of the report

some partcipants has asked for outline of report

scribe: this is very early draft in early stages everyone welcome to comment

<digikim> P13 is me

usecases and requirements extracted from UC will be in section of report

<digikim> ww: thanks, never remember the syntax :)

<emma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0120.html

scribe: we need to figure out what it will look like

<ww> np. me neither. took me several tries when i logged in

\me too much keyboard noise

<markva> I hear someone typing; cannot hear discussion well

scribe: next report section - available data

<antoine> zakin, aabb is jneubert

markva q about terminology

scribe: 'vocabulary' a loaded term
... element sets proposed for things like FRBR
... is htis the time to make the decision

<AlexanderH> +1 value vocabularies

<antoine> at least in the report what is aimed is "metadata element set"

scribe: limited number of people joined in the discussion

<antoine> ... in section "vocabularies"

scribe: what is the process for coming to a decision?

<marcia> FRBR is a conceptual model

scribe: discussion seems to be spread across multiple thread

<jodi> Re: AW: SemWeb terminology page is one of the other threads

<kcoyle> there is also a frbr ontology that has been defined in a number of formats

emma: placeholder in report for terminology

<kcoyle> there is frbroo, frbrer, and frbr core

<marcia> conceptual model and data model should be differently identified

emma: sees discussion on irc invites contribs

marcia: conceptual models are models, implementations are different
... original FRBR is still conceptual model

<kcoyle> they are -- they have been defined in rdf

emma: once in RDF would they be vocabs?

<markva> +1 Alexander

AlexanderH: discussion is more about separation between value vocabs and element sets

<GordonD> Vocabularies derived from conceptual models can be used in same way as those derived from data models - just expect conceptual models to be broader or less detailed

<kcoyle> yes, that is the discussion

antoine: the report should only mention conceptual models through their implementation as metadata vocabularies ?

<AlexanderH> but there are properties that don't derive from models i.e. FOAF

<markva> there is an implicit model in docs of FOAF

<digikim> Zakim: P13 is digikim

emma: agress with AlexanderH

<markva> I think model/implementation discussion not relevant here

AlexanderH: make distinction that conceptual models are models and have been implemented

emma: not make decision now but on mailing list
... back to outline of report

<danbri> there certainly was some thinking behind the FOAF design; it wasn't arbitrary, although it evolved bit by bit. But FOAF isn't an RDFification of some pre-existing, written down 'model'...

emma: next section recommendations
... tried to organise outcomes of F2F mtg into sections
... again very early draft to give idea of how to organise report, non-definitive
... everybody please look at report outline

<GordonD> Why say "LLdata should be produced using the FR's as domain model."? There are other domain models, eg ISBD ...

<markva> is an action?

emma: we need feedback on early draft to move forward
... any comments?

<antoine> @GordonD: good point to make in your future remarks on the outline :-)

<markva> sounds good

emma: feedback welcome on list discuss further on future call

USECASES

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/UseCases

emma: invites comments from cluster owners

markv: no further progress to report
... emails suggested scenarios need to be extracted

emma: idea is to suggest how it could look like in report
... how to tranform use cases into something readable for report

<GordonD> Gordon and Martin yet to start on their cluster - but expect to make good progress after we get started ;-)

mark: no time to look at that yet

<antoine> idea of abstract scenarios was also mentioned in previous calls here

markva: is this agreed what is the status?

emma: not decided mentioned on previous call
... need feedback from clusters if it is a good idea

<GordonD> +1 for abstraction

markva: agrees it is a good idea to give more abstraction

<antoine> +1 with abstracting

emma: in archive cluster we have started to look at this and work in that direction

<markva> hard time hearing

<kcoyle> we have new goals; we need to decide whether to add them to the goals page

<kcoyle> or to create a new page, or a new section on that page

<markva> great!!

emma: we tried to make goals fit ones from mark's cluster, but they were quite different
... we need to add new goals to teh page

<emma> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals

<antoine> +1 with that process!

emma: more description for goals needed
... any other feedback?

<markva> yep, hard to define goals clearly, generic and specific at same time

USE CASE ACTIONS

<antoine> scribe:antoine

<scribe> scribenick:antoin

<antoine> scribenick:antoine

monica: my colleagues at JISC couldn't make it for today
... but they're happy to discuss on the public list
... what is the interest of the group here?
... how JISC gathers information? Something else?
... this will help identify who would come and talk about the JISC work

<jodi> for me the interest is how they gathered the use cases

emma: interest in on UCs they gathered on the web site

<jodi> and whether they have any suggestions for comparing our use cases to theirs

<jodi> (I'd like to make sure we don't have systematic bias in how we've come up with them, by doing them the same way.)

monica: ok, I'll see if someone (??) if he can answers questions

<monica> owen stephens is our contact

monica: easier however if discussion start on list for better scoping

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine to ask Monica to lead discussion about JISC use cases at http://obd.jisc.ac.uk/navigate [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/18-lld-minutes.html#action03] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Monica and JISC colleagues to introduce and discuss JISC work on next call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action02]

<emma> scribe: Monica

<emma> scribenick: monica

<antoine> scribenick:monica

wikipages

<emma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0107.html

<antoine> ACTION: William: to summarize options for using CKAN to the list, before next concall [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/11-lld-minutes.html#action01] [DONE]

william: reiterate what is in email

for people to curate group people need to login to CKAN

scribe: inform ww and kcoyle about their openID
... could we all do this?

<jodi> I'm interested, need to login, etc. :)

<antoine> +1

<Asaf> long-term, maybe. Right now, quite over-committed.

emma: volunteers to curate CKAN
... jodi, antoine

<GordonD> +1

<scribe> ACTION: volunteers to send login information to william waite to curate CKAN [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/25-lld-minutes.html#action04]

TOPIC UPCOMING FACE-TO-FACE MEETING AT SWIB10 IN COLOGNE

antoine: in ww's mail there was a proposed strategy

relation between bibliographic and LOD group

<jodi> +1

emma: idea is to create an LLD group
... was there feedback on the list?

ww: there was a question about relationship between LOD and LODCloud
... LODCloud has more requirements e.g. quality
... quality checked manually
... that was extent of questions

anotoine: no objection to suggestion
... propose to resolve to follow strategy as suggested by ww

<antoine> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0107.html

RESOLVE: follow strategy of creating LLD group for CKAN http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0107.html

<emma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2010Nov/0128.html

TOPIC UPCOMING FACE-TO-FACE MEETING AT SWIB10 IN COLOGNE

emma: agenda has been sent

antoine: an informal meeting
... entire group copied for information
... have informal discussion, continue discussion from last weeks
... first topic use case clusters

second topic final report outline

scribe: would people be interested in remote participation?

emma: is it possible to provide remote participation facility?

<markva> background noise?

<markva> ppl talking

emma: who is interested is it worth doing?

antoine: annette is not here
... is it worth to make the effort to find the phone

emma: irc implies need to scribe which is more complicated than summarising the call

jneubert: there is a chance to have microphone on the phone will let us know

emma: who else would liek to attend on irc or phone?
... not alot of interest

antoine: not the intention to force people to participate
... but anyone wanting to join is welcome but keep it simple

emma: any other business

<Asaf> Has any of you been in touch with the Interedition group?

<Asaf> I just got back from an Interedition meeting in Pisa.

<Asaf> They are not too aware of linked data.

<Asaf> I tried to get them interested.

<Asaf> (still a bit noisy here)

<Asaf> (probably better to type_)

<Asaf> So they're doing digital editions of manuscripts. I'll add something about it on the wiki, yes.

<Asaf> yes.

<markva> bye!

<digikim> thanks

<emma> adjourned

<ww> thanks everyone

- DRAFT -

LLD XG

25 Nov 2010

Attendees

Contents

Admin

USECASES

USE CASE ACTIONS

wikipages

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output