LLD XG -- 10 Feb 2011

<emma> Previous: 2011-02-03 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/03-lld-minutes.html

<uldis> mduke: Bristol and Nice did not work for me either, some telcos ago. 'm calling +1 (US) number via skype

sure, I can scribe

<TomB> Scribe: jodi

<TomB> Scribenick: jodi

<emma> Scribenick: jodi

yes

Admin

<TomB> +1 accept minutes

Minutes accepted.

Another teleconference to be scheduled.

For some members this telcon time is quite late: 5 members after 10 PM, some even after midnight. We have proposed a special teleconference where they would have a chance to participate and present.... 4 in Japan, 1 in Malaysia

TomB: Hopes some people, especially from US West Coast and Europe could join
... to have larger representation from the group
... for the Asia-Pacific time zone telecon.

Emma: Let's talk about the LOD-LAM Summit that is planned for San Francisco for June: http://lod-lam.net/

<kcoyle> i applied

Emma: People can apply to attend this summit [by February 28]. Who plans to apply?

<Asaf> I'll be in SF, so would most likely like to attend.

Emma: maybe we can invite organizers to one of our telcons in February, to see what they would expect from us.

<antoine> +1 for inviting Jon Voss for 10 min once

<uldis> +1

<kcoyle> what would be the purpose?

Emma: purpose would be to have more explanation of the event and what they're expecting

Karen: The way the event is being described: an open space style barcamp...
... So the content will be determined

sorry be right back

skype--

<antoine> Karen: we could talk about gap analysis

scribe: some direction in any event

So the content will be determined on the first day of the event.

<kcoyle> oops. hit wrong button. will call back in

<Asaf> We are experiencing a Bad Skype Day.

<rsinger> +1

TomB: I'm happy to invite Jon Voss for next week's call.

<uldis> http://lod-lam.net/summit/about/

TomB: The summit talks about deriving requirements, and that's what we've been trying to do.

<kcoyle> +1

TomB: Find out from Jon what he hopes to achieve, and how that fits in with what we've been doing

<marcia> From the Website: * Identify the tools and techniques for publishing and working with Linked Open Data. * Draft precedents and policy for licensing and copyright considerations regarding the publishing of library, archive, and museum metadata. * Publish definitions and promote use cases that will give LAM staff the tools they need to advocate for Linked Open Data in their institutions.

<scribe> ACTION: Tom B to invite Jon Voss for a future telcon, to present http://lod-lam.net/summit/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action01]

marcia++

FINAL REPORT DRAFT

Draft Report is at: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport

Emma: We're starting by putting everything in one big draft, to see where we stand
... Right now we need to focus on finishing the cluster effort...

<ww> (hard to hear emma)

Emma: So that we can move on to other things. We should be closing out clusters when they are good enough. Let the reviewers proofread what has been done, and input new ideas.

Emma: Can we look at every cluster action, to see if we can close the action?

<GordonD> Bibliographic data cluster is in "good enough" state - can close action.

Emma: If we can't close it, replace the generic action with a more specific one.

<GordonD> Yes

<GordonD> I mean, it's finished

<jeff_> Can authority data have one more week?

<scribe> ACTION: Gordon and Martin to curate bibliographic data cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action05 [DONE]

<Zakim> edsu, you wanted to ask if we will have an opportunity to suggest edits later

Ed: When the pieces are assembled into the final document, we'll be able to raise questions, and suggest edits, right?

<kcoyle> i assume we'll need to copy edit and make them look somewhat alike

<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to answer ed

Antoine takes over chairing, and acknowledges Tom.

TomB: I think we need to transition to a reviewing stage...
... By formal review, I mean we assign a reader or two, read through a section, post comments to the list 2-3 days before a call, and then, during the call discuss any issues arising.
... That will get as many eyes looking at each section, from various points of view, not just the authors' point of view.
... At the same time, we'll smooth out stylistic differences.

Ed: If I get assigned to work on "bibliographic data" -- or choose to -- ...
... My hope is that we'll look at the document as a whole, rather than just focusing on one piece.
... I like the sound of moving into a new phase of reviewing, but I hope for us to be reading the whole document.

TomB: Maybe we could start by reviewing SECTIONS of the document.
... Reviewing the document as a whole might be too overwhelming -- too many comments at once to allow us to focus.

antoine: Maybe two levels of editing?

<GordonD> +1 for formal review and subsequent, and cosmetic, editing

antoine: One to focus on the content, the second to focus on the editorial level, rather than the content of each section.

<GordonD> Cosmetic editing should be done by one or two people only (+1 Antoine)

<TomB> +1 we need stylistic reviews too

<edsu> lol

TomB: We need stylistic review.

<rsinger> bah, writing!

<rsinger> wont the computers do that for us?

Karen: Most of the document hasn't been written yet. We need to talk about how that's going to happen.

<GordonD> To write the final report, we must stop writing the use cases, etc.

Karen: Will people volunteer to write what they want and see what comes of that?

Ed: It's from assembling what we've written.

<TomB> +1 Karen - there are indeed gaps, some big ones!

Karen: Right now it looks like a list of lists. But it needs to be a document with conclusions.

<GordonD> Suggest we need a game plan for the review - deadlines for future discussions leading into content, etc.

<edsu> kcoyle++

TomB: Rationale to assemble in one document is to see what's there and what's not there.

<Asaf> kcoyle++

Karen: It's not only the writing: We have to draw conclusions. But I don't feel that we *have* drawn conclusions yet. That's another step.

That might happen by writing and then discussing...

or we might have a session where we discuss what we've learned

<edsu> the sooner we get the doc started the better

<edsu> i guess

go ahead Tom

Antoine: Gordon suggests we should create a planning

Tom: If I could suggest, all of the cluster authors should have an action to copy their text over into the draft report...
... We should move content into one document (replacing placeholders)

<antoine> -1!

Tom: Rather than using transclusion, maybe it would be better to copy things over.

<TomB> antoine, did you mean "-1" ?

<Zakim> jodi, you wanted to talk about the whole-document content aspect

<emma> Jodi: read the whole report as soon as possible to figure out what are the gaps & what we already know

<mduke> jodi: the gaps are not just in the content but in what we have addressed

<emma> ... and what we hanven't addressed yet

<emma> ... I like the idea to ask questions on the list and then discussing on telecons

Antoine: I'm afraid of having to edit the large document on the wiki...
... Transclusion would be more flexible

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

<Asaf> Jodi is a WikiNinja! :)

<emma> +1 for transclusion, lowers the risk of versionning

<antoine> +1

I can take an action on that

<scribe> ACTION: Jodi to replace placeholders in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport with transclusion code [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action04]

Antoine: Not everything will be ready by next week...
... focus on the clusters and sections which are in a readable state

<edsu> readable & reasonable would be nice :-)

<emma> clusters need review before

<GordonD> Suggest transcluding everything - will help to prioritise work!

<GordonD> We need to shift focus to final document

<TomB> Suggesting transcluding everything unless the cluster authors protest

I kind of agree with you, Gordon. Also for simplicity.

<kcoyle> doesn't translcuison mean the report is never finished?

Ed: I like the idea of having a readable and reasonable document to look at. I'm indifferent about transclusion.
... The cluster pages are kind of like notes. But now we have the task of assembling this report.

<GordonD> I mean transcluding everything that is to be included in the final report ...

Ed: We need conclusions, introductions, .... And whoever is editing this document will need to decide what to take out of each document.

<TomB> +1 agree with Ed - we will need to start doing some significant editing on those sections

Ed: For me, the mechanical process of transclusion is not going to help significantly.

<rsinger> well, but can't the transcluded full thing be copy and pasted into a "final" document to edit?

<Zakim> emma, you wanted to suggest that a lot of content is actually present in UC clusters

rsinger++

<TomB> +1 can live with transcluding everything

<rsinger> but the transcluded pieces would be easier to maintain until we get to that point

<rsinger> spellcheck sure hates "transclusion"

Emma: We have lots of content in the use case clusters, but this content is not going fit just in the use case section. It will go into the requirements section, etc.

<michaelp> +1 re Ed's suggestion. But the UC cluster pages would have to be frozen before we can move on.

Emma: I agree with Ed: if we use transclusion, it doesn't make a lot of difference. We can still edit them in a separate page.

<rsinger> plus it will be a lot easier to have talk pages about the individual sections, right?

Emma: I'm wondering what's going to happen with the problems and limitations section [of the use cases]. We have a problems and limitations section of the full report.

<GordonD> We agreed to have a telecon session on the general problems raised in Library standards and linked data; we can also include extracted Problems and limitations from clusters ...

Antoine: We can move that content to the problems and limitations section.

<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to suggest that the chairs assign reviewers

Antoine: We've discussed this for a while and only have 20 minutes left. I think we'll keep the action on Jodi to transclude. We will figure out from there what we need to edit in the next weeks.

TomB: The chairs have been discussing: How do we get reviewers.
... Using telcon time would not be efficient -- would take a lot of our time.

<Asaf> +1

<GordonD> +1

<edsu> and cherry pick who reviews it :-(

TomB: Inclined to have the chairs actively recruit reviewers without using telcon time by sending notes to people.

Ed: It doesn't seem very open for me for the chairs to pick who you want to review it.

<emma> we could also do it by asking people to volunteer on a wiki page - more open ?

TomB: It's a little like a conference committee -- assignments being sent out.

<Asaf> Compromise: do it on the list.

Antoine: There's also a suggestion from Emma that we could do this on a wiki page.

<GordonD> Ask for volunteers, with deadline, then assign gaps

Ed: What else would we discuss on the call? I don't understand.

Antoine: The content.

<uldis> +1 re wiki page (to record who is [volunteering] to review what).

Antoine: Also want an opportunity to get other people, who aren't on the call. It can be difficult to catch up once someone has volunteered.

+1 to have a wiki page recording who is reviewing, regardless of how we are deciding

<Asaf> Isn't the list our most inclusive space?

<emma> Let's send a call on the list + have a wiki page to record the result

<Asaf> emma++

<rsinger> i agree with asaf

Ed: I don't like the idea of having the three chairs deciding this.

<uldis> volunteering for reviewing can take place on multiple mediums -- telco, list, ...

<ww> edsu++

Ed: I would like for people to hear that discussion, whether that happens on the telcon or on the list, I don't mind. Just want to be part of the discussion.

Antoine: I think we have a proposal on the table, to start with...
... and whatever we decide on top of, we can decide in the calls.

TomB: I think we have two proposals: to use the wiki page and to use the mailing list
... One of our rationales was to make this more open for people who couldn't make the telcos. On the list, people will see that.

<Zakim> jodi, you wanted to suggest mailing list + wiki in combination

<TomB> +1 to Jodi's suggestion

<michaelp> But discussion of report content has to happen on the calls as well.

<emma> Jodi: nice to see this on the list, but avoid emails overflow, use the wiki to keep track of it

<marcia> +1 Jodi: call through email, sign up on the wiki

Antoine: Let's move back to the cluster discussion.
... In the next week we'll start that.

<mduke> +1 Jodi

Antoine: Thanks for the input -- it's extremely precious for the life of the working group.

Jeff: I think we need a week for this.

(which action?)

<scribe> ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06

--continuing

<scribe> --continues

<scribe> ACTION: Jeff and Alexander to curate authority data cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action06 [CONTINUES]

Monica: I'm the shepard of one of the use cases in Jeff's cluster. Jeff, do you need anything specific from the shepards of these use cases at this point?

<Zakim> mduke, you wanted to ask if anything needed from use case shepherds - is this authority data cluster?

<rsinger> "don't call us, we'll call you"

Antoine: The cluster curators should be in touch with the use case shepards if anything is needed.

Vocabulary alignment cluster

Michael: I think it can be closed. We probably have another call, but I think the changes are going to be very minor, if anything.

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine and Michael to curate vocabulary alignment cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action07] [DONE]

Antoine: Still looking at edits from Michael, but I agree that we can move to reviewing.

Emma: We haven't done anything in the last few weeks, so I think we can close this.

Karen: I agree.

<scribe> ACTION: Karen and Emma to curate archive cluster for end of December [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

\me thanks michael!

Citations cluster

Antoine: Has had some discussion, I think this cluster is ready to be reviewed.

Ed: yes

Antoine: This action is already closed

Digital Objects

Asaf, can you address that?

in IRC then?

<Asaf> Yes, I think we're done.

<scribe> ACTION: Mark, Jodi, and Asaf to curate digital objects cluster for end of December [recorded in [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action09]

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/10/23-lld-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> --done

Social uses

<Asaf> (We will probably be tweaking it some more once it's in the context of everything else in the draft report...)

Antoine: This is a new cluster. There's still an ongoing call for use cases which ends on February 15. We can't close this action yet.
... Have you received some cases?

<GordonD> I expect Collections cluster to be finished next week (I hope Karen agrees ;-)

Jodi: A few, not significant.

Antoine: suggests sending a reminder email due to the approaching deadline.

<kcoyle> yes, i agree

<scribe> ACTION: Collections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action10]

<scribe> ACTION: GordonD and Karen to curate collection cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/01/06-lld-minutes.html#action11 [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Uldis and Jodi to create social uses cluster [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2010/12/16-lld-minutes.html#action03 [CONTINUES]

Possible new cluster on web services?

Antoine: Last week on the mailing list there was discussion of a possible new cluster on web services.
... Kevin and Joachim -- is there still interest in this?

Kevin: Is there a need? Should we be creating new clusters at this point?

Antoine: It's up to you. If you and Joachim can identify cases that are not being addressed.

\me thanks Asaf

Joachim: I'm not really sure if it's appropriate to add a new cluster. This would take some time and there wasn't a lot of reaction about this on the mailing list.
... How else could we deal with this for the final report?

<GordonD> CBD discussion touches on Web services ...

<GordonD> See the Bib data cluster

Antoine: Maybe you could look at what's in the existing clusters and see where the web service dimension could be strengthened? Maybe it could be addressed with use case shepards.

<kefo> will do, GordonD

<scribe> ACTION: Kevin and Joachim to review content of existing clusters to see where the web service dimension could be strengthened. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action13]

emma++

Antoine: 2 minutes past our time, so skipping the rest of the agenda, is there any other business?

<rsinger> i did my action from last week: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Library_data_in_Semantic_Web_formats

<scribe> ACTION: Antoine, Emma, TomB to send a call for reviewers to the list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/10-lld-minutes.html#action14]

<rsinger> suggestions for edits most welcome!

<scribe> ACTION: ross to deprecate the "library data and semantic web formats" and create a link to the CKAN efforts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/02/03-lld-minutes.html#action09 [DONE]

Antoine: thanks everyone! see you next week!

<rsinger> bye!

<ww> ty bye everyone

- DRAFT -

LLD XG

10 Feb 2011

Attendees

Contents