LLD XG -- 04 Aug 2011

<antoine> Previous: 2011-07-21 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/21-lld-minutes.html

<jodi> t

<jodi> thanks. antoine!

<jodi> means that I'm trying to eat and type at the same time :)

<tbaker> Scribe: Marcia

<edsu> zoia, [LC] is edsu

<tbaker> scribenick: marcia

ADMIN

Minutes of previous telecons PROPOSED: To accept

RESOLUTION: approved minutes from last call

Tom: two more tele-cons

<jodi> which we really need to do! :)

Tom: lots need to be done still

Comments received

Tom: realized missing the comments from the blog
... created a page
... Links to reviews - including comments on the UKOLN blog - updated from DraftReportReviewerAssignments (Tom)

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

scribe: any comments?
... summarized comments from various sections. Authors should find useful

<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] [CONTINUES]

<scribe> ACTION: Daniel to keep track of comments from July 23-July 30 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/minutes/2011/07/07-lld-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

emma: will continue to monitor through AUg. 11

<scribe> ACTION: Emma to keep track of comments through AUG. 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action03]

<tbaker> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-lld/2011Aug/0003.html

Tom: we had a discussion. two issues
... will come back to the recommendation issues
... looking at the draft of the report as a whole and the comments received, the group felt it might be useful to divise the current draft into two
... first title something like "Benefits of Library Linked Data, with Recommendations"
... 8 pages long
... comments include good ones and also issues. There were complains about the level of report sections assumed decision makers will read the report
... survey-oriented sections should be put into a second document
... such as vocabularies, technolgies. Not try to address high level issues like the first documents
... now there are redundant of vocabularies in both report and side
... the thirs deliverable would be use cases
... open to comments

<edsu> +1 for splitting it

Tom: regarding spliting

Antoine: where are these comments that addressing the mixing

Tom: some comments about technical details

Karen: a number of comments said it is not clear of the audiance
... I agree not necessarily be two documents. but general description should be first, in order not to lose them.
... maybe just rearranging

<edsu> +1 for rearranging i mean :-)

Karen: first part could stand alone. people who are only interested in that could just read that.

<jeff_> Could the techie bits be left in place, but flagged somehow?

Antoine: the higher level recommendation should still in the main doc.

<edsu> jeff_: kind of like spicy things on a menu? :-)

<jeff_> edsu: exactly!

<GordonD> All recommendations (general and technical) should be in the recommendations section.

Karen: the first section now is very general. 2nd section go into how you do it.

Antoine: data and technology side both have also general contents

<michaelp> Donal Knuth in the TeX docs uses a "sharp bend"/dangerous curve icon to flag those technical parts.

<Zakim> emma, you wanted to say that Vocs & data is part of general description

Karen: right now vocabulary inserted in between, it does not seem right. Afraid losing readers

Emma: data description need to be there to show we are not talking from zero. Having descriptions inside of the main report will be useful.
... should keep them in the same doc. re-arrange a little bit

<Zakim> tbaker, you wanted to suggest that we have Part A and B

Tom: suggest to have a Part A and Part B.
... Make sense to make some into tight exc. summary
... If more challange, can be referred to Part B, e.g., technologies
... Voc and Dataset already have description and a detail... can almost go to appendix

<jodi> I don't think that additional documents is really additional overhead

Karen: we can clarify them if we have real good titles

Tom: agree with Karen

Karen: 1 section we set up theme
... 2nd: talking about tools that are available, progress already been made.
... folks look at TOC can see the flow

Antoine: current situation is already out there

<emma> +1, antoine

Antoine: in the current issue section

Tom: Imply what we have the structure right now

Antoine: maybe the data section just give methodologies through examples

Emma: the technology may not so fit at the place

Jodi: Like Tom's proposal. There must be someway to convey them to read the technology without including the details in the main report.
... should be as short as possible and as general as possible

<jodi> yes

Tom: we were planning to have vocabulary as side deliverable.
... take the draft vocab/data section, keep in Deliverable A. Move technology to B.
... technology details of vocabulary and dataset go into B.

<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to comment on relevant technologies

Antoine: maybe workable

<antoine> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section

Antoine: maybe keep basic descriptions in the report

Tom: that makes sense
... there are complains about the typology of dataset, element set, and value vocabularies, but no better way now

<GordonD> +1 for a short, general description of current state of available library vocabularies (most acronmys will be familiar to library executives) in part a, referring to the fuller separate deliverable

<kcoyle> I think placement is important; are we still keeping benefits, issues and recommendations together?

Tom: in the main report keep this section.
... just afraid of general readers would not follow
... looks like we are coming to an agreement of how to structure.

Antoine: disagree with to put technology into a different deliverable

<GordonD> +1 benefits, current situation and issues (including vocabularies), recommendations in first part

<jodi> +1 to making it concrete

<jodi> if you make me a list of what you want, I can do the transclusion -- it's easy enough

<jodi> or what tom says :)

Tom: maybe make al alternative transclusion and see how it looks like

<antoine> it's just a matter of changing the order of the current transclusion, I think :-)

<scribe> ACTION: Jodi to make an alternative transclusion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action04]

Tom: asking Karen to work with Jodi

Karen: happy to do it.

<jodi> great, Karen: the list of pages will be very easy to edit into a transclusion page :)

<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]

<scribe> ACTION: Karen and Emma to write a sentence adding cultural and memory institutions together in some way [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/07/07-lld-minutes.html#action03]

Karen: the note is in there.

<scribe> CONTINUES

BENEFITS OF LINKED DATA (Ed, Emmanuelle, Ross) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Benefits

Emma: worked on the comments from Dickson. We may need a meeting between me and ED
... suggest to have an action

<edsu> emma++

<scribe> ACTION: Editors of BENEFITS to meet and work on the comments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action07]

AVAILABLE VOCABULARIES AND DATASETS (Antoine, Jeff, Marcia, William) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Vocabularies_Datasets_Section

Antoine: we can manage them. There are manageable comments

RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES (Jeff) -- http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies

Jeff: will keep working on them.

<scribe> CONTINUES

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO ADOPTION

Karen: challenges and barriers... got lots of comments. We got pushed back to the recommendations

some are beyond our scope.

scribe: should keep in library linked data

<Zakim> kcoyle, you wanted to ask about transclusion

scribe: removed a lot of how things should be done. Focused on what should be done
... regarding library systems
... assigining URIs, deciding what data go out first, etc.

<jodi> adding metadata education

scribe: removed things like staffing

<jodi> (I mean, "adding metadata education" was removed)

scribe: removed some statements.

<jodi> <-- from recommendations

<jodi> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_issues_page_take2

<jodi> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page_take2

scribe: staffing, transfering the data, assignment of URI, etc.

<tbaker> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Draft_issues_page_take2&diff=5537&oldid=5374

now it is more positive

Tom: the draft is in the new page

<Zakim> emma, you wanted to ask how to handle removed items that need to go into benefits

Emma: did you track the changes?

Karen: we can go back to the notes

<antoine> pls send stuff around too!

<antoine> (like the list of stuff to consider for benefits)

<scribe> ACTION: Karen will track items from former "issues" and "recommendations" that belong to benefits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-lld-minutes.html#action08]

Tom: will need to work on these in the next weeks.

<Zakim> antoine, you wanted to have a call next week

<jodi> +1 to a call next week

Tom: welcome suggestions of how to do things differently

<kcoyle> +1 call next week

<jeff_> +1

<jodi> (however I will be gone myself)

<GordonD> regrets for next week, and week after

TOM: will have conference next week

USE CASES (Daniel) - SEPARATE DELIVERABLE

Karen: maybe just add some words in the Exc. summary regarding the use cases, mention them and say something about them.

TRANSITION TO W3C COMMUNITY GROUP

Tom: mentioned: 2011-05-12: Should inform W3C of intent to transition by 1 August for transition on 1 September (and cancel Zakim slot).

<emma> we did have discussion on 2011-06-30

Tom: right now no clear indication of actions
... at the moment, the situation is that there is no replacement of this group.

<kcoyle> could we form a "transition group?"

<kai> Have to leave, too. Bye!

<kcoyle> with no long term obligation

<edsu> emma++ # public discussion

Emma: will put on list

<antoine> +1

<jodi> +1 to public list discussion

<jodi> that sounds like kcoyle is volunteering to help make sure it happens, but only with others :)

<antoine> the list will survive, anyway!

Karen: the small group of people who are willing to work through emails

AOB

<jodi> bye!

<jneubert> bye

- DRAFT -

LLD XG

04 Aug 2011

Attendees

Contents

ADMIN

Comments received

TRANSITION TO W3C COMMUNITY GROUP

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output