HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Meetings/2009-11-6 Conference Call

From W3C Wiki

Conference Details

  • Date of Call: Friday Nov 6, 2009
  • Time of Call: 11:00am Eastern Time
  • Dial-In #: +1.617.761.6200 (Cambridge, MA)
  • Dial-In #: +33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice, France)
  • Dial-In #: +44.117.370.6152 (Bristol, UK)
  • Participant Access Code: 4257 ("HCLS")
  • IRC Channel: irc.w3.org port 6665 channel #HCLS (see W3C IRC page for details, or see Web IRC)
  • Duration: ~1 hour
  • Convener: Tim Clark
  • Scribe: TBD

Proposed Agenda

  • Action Plan: Developing a Standard Model for Coarse-Grained Rhetorical Structure
  • AOB

Minutes

<Susie> Attendees: Paolo, Anita, Tim, Susie, Matthias, David

<Susie> Regrets: Tudor

<Susie> Agenda: SWASD Workshop

<Susie> Agenda: Discourse Model Integration - Course Grained Rhetorical Structure

<Susie> David: Just finished CITO ontology, and would be happy to circulate

<Susie> David: Form basis of our harmonization efforts

<Susie> Tim: Happy to work to include in our harmonization efforts

<Susie> Susie: Congratulations on notes!

<Susie> Susie: What next?

<Susie> Tim: Several other efforts

<Susie> Tim: Equivalent to lots of ingredients

<Susie> Tim: So what ingredient to add next

<Susie> Tim: CITO is one option

<Susie> David: Andrew Gibson interested in rolling in CITO

<Susie> David: He's very good. He was at the meeting, and has done lots of work on SKOS

<Susie> Tim: Last time we identified a couple of people to do the work

<Susie> Tim: Then used these calls to get input from others

<Susie> David: Sounds fine to me

<Susie> Tim: Paolo wold be our key person

<Susie> Tim: Make sure all appropriate people at table have a say, so they are interested in supporting efforts

<Susie> David: Need to get our house in order first

<Susie> David: Need to align bibliographic ontology and CITO

<Susie> Paolo: We do need to align citation information

<Susie> Anita: Is this citation relations?

<Susie> David: Covers both targets and relations

<Susie> David: Have created my own targets

<Susie> David: Described in my paper

<Susie> Tim: Need to harmonize targets, and then align with SWAN

<Susie> Tim: Need description of bibliographic information about paper

<Susie> Tim: Is different between CITO and SWAN

<Susie> Anita: All stuff about author, and resolution

<Susie> Tim: Yes, all that stuff

<Susie> Tim: David also included citation relations, and want to harmonize those

<Susie> Anita: Already a lot in terms of software for citations

<Susie> Anita: Think Andrew is involved in that

<Susie> Anita: Can point you to someone who is aware of everything that's been done

<Susie> Matthias: Already have few RDF/OWL representations for citation information

<Susie> Matthias: Might have hard time to move to a new ontology for bibliography

<Susie> Matthias: Need to analyse cost benefit

<Susie> Tim: We're not trying to start from square one

<Susie> Tim: Want to align David's representation with SWAN/SIOC

<Susie> Tim: Let us know if we're missing anything else

<Susie> Tim: Then would be happy to consider them too

<Susie> Matthias: I'd look at RDF output from Zotero

<Susie> Matthias: We use Biblio ontology

<Susie> Matthias: Have used citation ontology, and bibtec ontology

<Susie> Matthias: Should look at those closely

<Susie> Tim: I understand what you're saying

<Susie> Tim: Make first task looking at bibtec and Zotero and make sure we aren't reinventing the wheel

<Susie> Anita: Could someone explain the use cases to me

<Susie> Tim: It's to represent the reference

<Susie> David: In the paper I mentioned we've marked up the reference

<Susie> Anita: Lots of work has been ongoing in bibliography standardization

<Susie> Anita: Need to know why existing standards don't survive

<Susie> Anita: Eventually you might want publishers to adopt

<Susie> Anita: And that would need a good justification'

<Susie> David: Interesting to know what vocabularies Elsevier can offer

<Susie> Anita: We don't have vocabularies, but do mappings

<Susie> Tim: These are for detailed description of the document

<Susie> Anita: Do do a lot of work for marking up the references

<Susie> David: Could you send us Elsevier marked up referneces

<Susie> Anita: That's available in documents we mark up in XML

<Susie> Anita: Can share examples with you

<Susie> Tim: Can we identify people who want to work on this

<Susie> Tim: If we agree on that we can move on

<Susie> Tim: Send people out to do work

<Susie> Tim: Get them to look at ontologies

<Susie> Tim: Fill any gaps

<Susie> David: How about Paolo, me, Andrew

<Susie> Paolo: Not trying to create a new citation ontology, but collapse 2 ontologies that are based on the same approach

<Susie> Tim: It's not a blank slate effort

<Susie> Anita: 2 aspects

<Susie> Anita: 1 = discourse relations

<Susie> Anita: 2 = bibliographic relations

<Susie> Anita: Maybe same people work on both

<Susie> Anita: Some talk about aligning KMI too

<Susie> Anita: Also some discussion with Larry Hunter

<Susie> Anita: Good to know what we're focusing on and what we're not working on

<Susie> Tim: Can't do everything at once

<Susie> Tim: Need to select things one at a time

<Susie> Tim: Trying to make fruit cake with lots of ingredients!

<Susie> Tim: Minimally collapsing SWAN and CITO

<Susie> Tim: Need to look at Zotero

<Susie> Tim: They already have a nice bibiography manager

<Susie> Tim: We'll make a roadmap

<Susie> Tim: Charter is to come up with a plan for collapsing SWAN and CITO

<Susie> Tim: And shed light on other ontologies may be relevant

<matthias_samwald> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/HCLSIG_BibliographicInformation

<Susie> Matthias: In early days of HCLS started wiki that compared and contrasted bibliographic information

<Susie> Tim: Preliminary report of space in 2 weeks?

<Susie> Tim: Also wanted to cover coarse rhetorical structure

<Susie> Tim: Many elements would need to be brought together for an uber model

<Susie> Tim: Tudor and I think this would be too broad

<Susie> Tim: Rhetorical structure would be a good start

<Susie> Tim: Very useful in an article

<Susie> Tim: Tudor thinks this would be a good start and has volunteered to work on it

<Susie> Anita: Keith working on that in my department

<Susie> Anita: Looked at Latex, but could look at Word

<Susie> Tim: Anyone else want to comment or participate?

<Susie> Tim: OK. Let's go with that then

<Susie> Anita: Keith has already spoken to Tudor

<Susie> Anita: Like to build it on SCF

<Susie> Anita: Keith may visit you next week

<Susie> Tim: If that's the case, will define work with him

<Susie> Anita: When spoke with Tudor he said he was also very interested in reviewing

<Susie> Anita: Interested in amintaining the metadata

<Susie> Anita: Tudor should talk about this

<Susie> Anita: It'd be like semantic EasyChair

<Susie> Tim: May be interesting, and relevant for him, but what's the link to the rhetorical strucutre?

<Susie> Anita: I don't think he's planning to do this work within this group

<Susie> Tim: But he has said that he's intrested in coarse grained rhetorical work

<Susie> Paolo: I should most probably participate as well

<Susie> Tim: Anita, would you be able to participate to help get the group started?

<Susie> Anita: Sure, and one of the people in my group will work on it

<Susie> Anita: Will schedule call with Keith, Tudor, Paolo etc before next call

<Susie> Tim: Automated annotation of documents could be a use case

<Susie> Anita: Also interested in entity level annotation

<Susie> Tim: Yes, and rhetorical structure would help

<Susie> Anita: Matthias - would you like to be involved?

<Susie> Matthias: Don't want to assign myself to something until I know I have enough resource, bandwidth, etc

<Susie> Anita: Because you've developed aTags and these could be used

<Susie> Tim: Matthias could be a worker on this and contribute

<Susie> Tim: Use case of aTags could benefits from understanding rhetorical question of document

<Susie> Tim: Getting critique from Matthias is valuable

<Susie> Tim: Very welcome to jump in deeper if/when he has time

<Susie> Matthias: Am especially interested in the conclusions section

<Susie> Matthias: It isn't very sophisticated but could benefit from this work

<Susie> Anita: I don't have so much experience in the aTag like area

<Susie> Tim: Tudor does have a good notion of this

<Susie> Tim: If bring the right people together and it all should happen

<Susie> David: Conclusions are very interested

<Susie> David: Want to summarize conclusions of papers about infectious disease using MIIBI

<Susie> Tim: 2 very concrete things that can be taken forward

<Susie> Tim: Workshop was very well attended

<Susie> Tim: Started at HCLS F2F

<Susie> Tim: Susie proposed at 4pm that we should submit a proposal and that it was due that day

<Susie> Tim: So all sat around and wrote it

<Susie> Tim: Next call

<Susie> Tim: 2 weeks out overlaps with SWAT4LS

<Susie> Anita: I'll be at SWAT4LS

<Susie> Tim: Next call in a week?

<Susie> Susie: Think about scheduling around Thanksgiving

<Susie> Tim: Propose next call on Dec. 4, but that we do homework in between

Retrieved from "https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=HCLSIG/SWANSIOC/Meetings/2009-11-6_Conference_Call&oldid=19240"