<antoine> Previous: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Apr/0064.html

<uldis> hi

<antoine> Scribe: Ed

<antoine> Scribenick: edsu

<pmurray> Unexpected regrets for today. Last minute family doctor's appt.

Admin

RESOLVED To accept http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/21-lld-minutes.html

RESOLVED http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/04/28-lld-minutes.html

antoine: we have a few reasons for wanting a charter extension
... we believe some more time would get us some time for a wider set of readers outside of this group, on the public discussion list and the lod-lam summit

<monica> zakim aadd is monica

antoine: we also will have harry halpin talking about w3c community groups next week, and would like some more time to think about and discuss this and other options
... is everyone ok with that, any objections?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0006.html

<jodi> reviewing_time++

<GordonD> +1 for charter extension

<uldis> +1

<michaelp> +1 for extension

<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask about telecons

<dvilasuero> +1 for charter extension (having problems with my ip caller)

<TomB> +1 for extension

emma: are we going to maintain the weekly teleconferences during the summer?

<TomB> +1 one call every two weeks

antoine: perhaps one call every two weeks would be more than enough

<GordonD> +1 for call every two weeks

antoine: we don't need to meet every week for the continuation of the work

emma: i agree, that would be good

antoine: if we don't get any serious objection on the list in the next 2 or 3 days, i think tom, emma and myself will ask for the extension

<dvilasuero> +1 for bi-weekly calls

antoine: the current teleconf schedule ends in may, we will be working on that

Final Report Draft

antoine: the benefits section, a little report?

<antoine> ed: no progress since last call

<antoine> ... Tom has put content

<antoine> ... it's largely there

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

antoine: feel free to send an email to get some reviewers

kcoyle: we discussed the benefits at one of the recommendation calls
... the globally unique identifiers needs to be more specific for libraries

<TomB> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits#.22Library_Linked_Data.22:_Scope_of_this_report

kcoyle: not general benefits

<emma> I can give it a try maybe

<jodi> Thanks Emma!

<antoine> kcoyle: we need someone from the benefits section to help us

<jodi> oops

kcoyle: needs to be specific to those institutions

<jodi> thanks emma!

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

<antoine> edsu: ross come with a paragraph

<antoine> kcoyle: that's what I'm looking for

<antoine> edsu: there's a bit in the benefits for researchers, patrons etc.

<antoine> ... that talks about the benefits of making data more available

<antoine> .. is that it?

<antoine> kcoyle: we want to emphasize the benefits for libraries

<TomB> [[

<TomB> Tom: The Issues/Recommendations group thinks this section may be too general and that points in this section could be reworded to emphasize the benefits for Libraries and Library Data: greater visibility for library data, and re-use of library data. The more data is re-used, the more value it has. And libraries able to provide services - e.g., researchers add citations into their papers...

<TomB> ...directly from library. Libraries need to be more visible in order to justify.

<TomB> ]]

<Zakim> TomB, you wanted to point out that the Scope section has been penciled in but needs to be written

<kcoyle> def. of lib (DRAFT) Library in this report refers to an agent which administers a collection of information resources curated for a designated community and provides services around those resources. Collections may be public or private, large or small, and are not limited to any particular types of resources. Collection and preservation of resources are key functions of libraries that are...

<kcoyle> ...not shared widely in the information space and therefore are given particular attention.

<antoine> edsu: there is sentence on the scope in the benefits: works, persons, concepts

<antoine> ... can't it answer what is library LD?

<emma> TomB: it's more about the motivations of libraries as intitutions

TomB: greater visibility, more reused the more valuable, etc
... libraries increasing their relevance

<jodi> Tom made my point: focusing on the *why* for libraries -- the benefits from the perspective of a library organization

<emma> TomB: better services for data, facilitating reuse of data, increasing visibility & relevance, that sort of things

TomB: pitching things so that decision makers will understand it

<emma> kcoyle: target library managers

<jodi> hopefully we'll get a library director or two to read this section during our review period to get some feedback

antoine: maybe the owners of the document can use these comments to revise the document for next week

<emma> ok for me

<emma> good idea, Jodi, +1 !

antoine: next we are to talk about problems and limitations

<scribe> ACTION: Gordon and Karen to consider relation between problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> --continues

antoine: next, we'll talk about relevant technologies http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
... also kevin had something to say about library linked data web services

<antoine>

<kefo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011May/0027.html

kefo: joachim contacted me, and we were thinking of trimming our section and integrating it into the relevant technologies
... if someone wants to do that it would be fine by me

antoine: thanks kevin, i think that's a good idea
... jeff is that ok?

jeff_: yes, sounds great

antoine: i think http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies is ready to be reviewed
... pretty close to claim victory on it, once kevin's stuff is added
... jeff you could send an email to the group list asking for reviewers
... there hasn't been any progress since the last teleconference on the vocabularies and datasets section http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Vocabulary_and_Dataset
... daniel do you have an update on the use case deliverable?

dvilasuero: i have about 1/2 of the report finished, and plan to update on the wiki and will send an email to the group
... i could use some help with some of the use cases, some of them could use some refinement, is it ok to email the owners?

antoine: yes
... you should be able to get the help from cluster owners

Recommendations

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

antoine: first of all, congratulations on doing what you have done so far on the public list!

kcoyle++

<kcoyle> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendations_page

kcoyle: based on comments we re-organized it around actions
... we did this mainly on the talk page: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Talk:Draft_recommendations_page
... we start out w/ an assess action, what datasets one might choose to convert first, or use first in a linked data type environment
... which is followed by planning, different paths one can take, having a discussion about data & rights
... the names of these things can change as much as you like
... then we have facilitate, to get across the idea of innovation, literacy, education
... then design, where we do modeling ; prepare, for best practices ; collaborate for getting involved in the community ; and finally curate
... helps get a better vision in terms of recommendations
... if there are actions that aren't in here, we'll need to add them in ... did we get everything that people care about?

emma: i'm wondering if this new organization of recommendations has the same purpose as the previous one ; is the purpose different?

<antoine> +1

emma: maybe you could indicate who typically cares about these actions, for people to understand easier

kcoyle: we're still trying to come up with a way to think about this to make sure we have everything in it, but the final version will indicate who the stakeholders are
... we need to think about who we are addressing at various points in the report

antoine: i think this problem of targeting the specific audience would be more relevant for your section ... i think i like it, but it seems like a business plan, if there was a way to flag the specific actions as for particular people

kcoyle: what we had before, our high levels weren't very evocative
... maybe with this new division we can see if it helps us identify the stakeholders
... what stakeholders do we want to be addressing here?
... i think we want management

<emma> developpers

<emma> standard creators

<emma> cataloguers

antoine: also catalogers

kcoyle: we want to include everybody, but if we have to divide up the page by stakeholders, we need some number of stakeholders

<emma> +1 Antoine : for each recommendation, give an idea of who we're adressing

kcoyle: maybe for each action we could say who we are addressing
... even if it is only for us

<TomB> +1 to address each recommendation to a specific target audience(s)

kcoyle: there will be activities that need to be addressed by more than one stakeholder
... we haven't used this to redesign the whole page yet, we were waiting for this discussion

antoine: maybe we can see the discussion

<emma> +1 for redesigning

<antoine> edsu: I like the focus on actions

<antoine> ... providing more on who to take the action is useful

<antoine> ... but as such it's good for the management level

<TomB> Ed: likes it alot. Likes focus on action. Agree with Antoine, Emma - who we want to take the action. Alot of these seem business-y - good for mgt people, but speaking as a developer, if I could point to this "want to collaborate more" - would be useful.

<GordonD> stakeholder category "cataloguer" is better expressed as "data manager" (for archives, museums, etc.)

<TomB> ...sometimes people are left wondering what they can do to help.

<jodi> +1 for moral support

<TomB> Karen: Part about "collaborating" - "moral support" for people who want to work in this area.

antoine: anyone have any more comments?

<GordonD> stakeholder categories might be: service managers (senior management); data managers; technical developers; standards developers; educators

kcoyle: we need to look through this to make sure there isn't anything that's like a bomb

<jodi> +1 to asking reviewers about unintended misreadings that are possible

emma: i think it's great to discuss the recommendations one by one on the list, i think we should go on with it

kcoyle: i've been trying to do them in logical chunks, and continue to try to do that

antoine: i had a question about vocabulary alignment, is there something there in the recommendations?
... some guidance on helping align library data with outside data sets

<GordonD> Section 1.3.5

antoine: we have aligning library data with externally produced data
... but that was the idea that we didn't want libraries creating yet another silo

kcoyle: in terms of alignment between libraries, i think we to describe that carefully, that it doesn't take the place of aligning with outside institutions
... in the discussion about URIs, people seemed to be agreeing but saying the opposite thing
... when we say the word "resources" they'll think about the metadata for the stuff they own
... if you say libraries have to create uris for resoruces, we have this big gap, since we have shared authority files ... but we have all the bibliographic data, which we don't have identifiers for
... there seems to be a different situation between the authority files and the bibliographic data

antoine: the recommendation would still promote the coining uris at whatever level is appropriate

jeff_: i assume that all of these things have internal identifiers, you can take those identifiers and slap http on the front of them, those are the things that deserve to be http identifiers

<jeff_> +1

kcoyle: we can recommend people to use the internal identifiers when creeating URIs
... my fear is that if we have two different things to say about these things

<jodi> thanks!

<kefo> bye

<dvilasuero> thanks!

antoine: meeting adjourned

<emma> I have to go, bye

<antoine> ACTION: Gordon and Karen to consider relation between problems and limitation section and the library resource wiki page. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/03/24-lld-minutes.html#action01] [CONTINUES]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: Ed
Found ScribeNick: edsu
Default Present: antoine, kcoyle, edsu, +33.1.44.78.aaaa, emma, AlexanderH, michaelp, uldis, jeff_, [IPcaller], Felix, Tom_Baker, GordonD, +1.763.463.aacc, jodi, +44.194.346.aadd, kefo, dvilasuero
Present: antoine kcoyle edsu +33.1.44.78.aaaa emma AlexanderH michaelp uldis jeff_ [IPcaller] Felix Tom_Baker GordonD +1.763.463.aacc jodi +44.194.346.aadd kefo dvilasuero
Regrets: Ray Ross Joachim Marcia Lars Peter
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011May/0007.html
Got date from IRC log name: 05 May 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/05/05-lld-minutes.html
People with action items: gordon karen