IRC log of lld on 2010-10-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:02:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #lld
18:02:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:02:47 [emma]
zakim, aabb is petej
18:02:47 [Zakim]
+petej; got it
18:03:44 [Zakim]
18:04:20 [TomB]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:04:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see antoine, mini, petej, andypowe11
18:04:27 [TomB]
zakim, who is making noise?
18:04:29 [andypowe11]
sorry... i dropped out - not sure why - am back now
18:04:38 [Zakim]
TomB, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: antoine (23%), petej (4%)
18:04:56 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
18:04:56 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate antoine
18:05:35 [TomB]
Scribe: Mark van Assem
18:05:40 [TomB]
Scribenick: markva
18:06:28 [markva]
Antoine: welcome joint meeting DC architecture group and W3C LLD
18:06:47 [kai]
kai has joined #lld
18:07:23 [markva]
antoine: issues with DCAM and APs built on them, explore options, consequences for future activities
18:07:54 [TomB]
can you all hear Antoine well?
18:08:05 [mini]
yes, very well
18:08:33 [andypowe11]
yes - sound is good
18:08:45 [petej]
Yes, fine
18:09:21 [markva]
markva is scribe
18:09:25 [markva]
Scribe: markva
18:10:02 [JennRiley]
JennRiley has joined #lld
18:10:46 [markva]
Antoine: TomB presents his work
18:10:59 [markva]
Antoine: 2nd presentation Michael Panzer et al
18:11:29 [markva]
Antoine: after coffee break exploration of reqs of APs in context of subject authority data
18:11:44 [markva]
Antoine: then informal discussion
18:12:33 [ambjorn]
ambjorn has joined #lld
18:13:33 [markva]
TomB: with pete johnston, walk through history of DCAM
18:14:24 [jphipps]
jphipps has joined #lld
18:14:42 [markva]
TomB: early 2000s: two mindsets: RDF and record format mindset
18:15:27 [markva]
... interoperability among DC implementations problematic
18:17:12 [markva]
... but RDF hard sell: researchy; perceived as flavor of XML
18:17:18 [mini]
antoine, I can hear Tom but not very clearly
18:17:43 [antoine]
is it better?
18:17:55 [Zakim]
18:18:09 [LarsG]
LarsG has joined #lld
18:18:27 [markva]
... role of DCAM: bridge between mindsets; tree struct vs. graphs
18:19:08 [markva]
... DCAM future: descriptive patterns reflecting existing metadata practice
18:19:17 [markva]
... notion of bounded records
18:19:23 [markva]
... notion of constraints
18:19:58 [markva]
... (shows diagram summarizing DCAM)
18:20:45 [Zakim]
+ +44.122.531.aacc
18:21:20 [andypowe11]
18:21:29 [antoine]
zakim, aacc is andypowe11
18:21:29 [Zakim]
+andypowe11; got it
18:22:12 [mini]
@antoine slightly better, but you were clearer earlier :-)
18:22:39 [markva]
... DCAM can be expressed in diff syntaxes; RDF/XML, HTML
18:23:11 [markva]
... common interface for operating across syntaxes
18:23:41 [markva]
... allows diff applications to communicate
18:25:17 [markva]
... DCAM family: DCAM, DSP, syntaxes (DC-XML, HTML, DC-Text, ...), user guidance (Singapore Framework, Guidelines ...)
18:25:56 [markva]
... Description Set Profile Constraint Language: layer on top of DCAM
18:26:40 [markva]
... example: book, creator. Template for instances of Book
18:27:25 [markva]
... Statement template: slots: property, literal value, language, Syntax Encoding Scheme
18:27:28 [antoine]
zakim, who is noisy?
18:27:39 [Zakim]
antoine, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: antoine (90%), petej (9%)
18:28:49 [markva]
... Statement template for creator, only use slot value string
18:29:43 [markva]
... "cookie cutter" for creating descriptions; Book's title is a literal, creator with dcterms:creator
18:31:10 [markva]
... wiki syntax for combining template representation and html presentation of template
18:32:34 [markva]
... XML syntax for DSPs
18:33:09 [markva]
... motivation: configure metadata editor; use template to generate form for entering metadata
18:33:43 [markva]
... validating metadata
18:33:51 [markva]
... create OWL expression of constraints
18:34:02 [markva]
... (diagram of Singapore Framework)
18:35:38 [petej]
Yes, fine
18:35:53 [markva]
... interoperability levels: informal; semantic; Description set syntactic interop; Description Set Profile interop
18:36:41 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
18:36:54 [markva]
... ~ shared Natural languge, shared formal model, shared records, shared constraints
18:38:25 [markva]
... future scenarios: (1) carry on as before (2) DCAM 2 spec, better aligned with RDF (3) deprecate, continue with RDF (4) nothing
18:38:50 [markva]
... (1) interest? editors? review?
18:39:35 [markva]
(2a) simplified and better aligned with RDF; structural constraints of APs
18:39:50 [markva]
... impact of DCAM 2 on DCAM family?
18:40:23 [markva]
... (2b) goal: clarification; transitional, to be deprecated in favor of RDF
18:41:11 [markva]
... (3) negative impact? existing specs status? change in message? basis for APs gone?
18:42:14 [markva]
... (4) does DCMI stand behind it or not? reputation? credibility?
18:43:02 [markva]
... DCAM abstract syntax vs. RDF
18:43:19 [markva]
... Descritption (sets) ~ named graphs?
18:43:33 [markva]
... VES ~ SKOS concept schemes?
18:43:59 [markva]
... use of rdf:value continues or something else such as skos:prefLabel?
18:44:12 [markva]
... Issue: APs
18:45:07 [markva]
... syntax pattern checks; checking patterns in the graph? Use OWL with closed world assumption?
18:45:22 [markva]
... split in Singapore Framework
18:45:41 [markva]
... constraints in underlying vocabulary or patterns on the data?
18:45:59 [edsu]
what the room looks like (if you are interested)
18:46:33 [mini]
@edsu hey, thanks, I was just wondering
18:46:35 [andypowe11]
@edsu thanks
18:46:42 [markva]
John Phipps: continue developing DCAM only realistic option
18:46:59 [antoine]
18:47:27 [markva]
... RDF no notion of record, DCAM provides that
18:47:52 [markva]
... enormous value outside RDF world
18:48:13 [markva]
TomB: remote participants comments?
18:48:17 [Zakim]
18:48:19 [markva]
... additions to presentation?
18:48:46 [andypowe11]
nothing from me at this stage
18:49:28 [Zakim]
18:50:07 [andypowe11]
i'm lost - is the floor open for discussing the options?
18:50:10 [markva]
Akira Mijasawa: DCAM DCAM2 differences?
18:50:11 [mini]
zakim, P0 is me
18:50:11 [Zakim]
sorry, mini, I do not recognize a party named 'P0'
18:50:18 [antoine]
@andy : yes
18:50:32 [emma]
zakim, ??P0 is mini
18:50:32 [Zakim]
+mini; got it
18:50:39 [markva]
TomB: DCAM2 mostly RDF except where RDF does not have constructs
18:50:55 [markva]
TomB: get rid of DC terminology that is mapped to RDF
18:50:56 [andypowe11]
ok, i'd like to speak at some point
18:52:34 [markva]
andypowe11: options 2b, 3 and 4: all work to RDF, which is where we want to get to
18:52:55 [markva]
... which of these is better to get to that end game, wrt time available
18:53:23 [markva]
... 4 seems not ideal, but less effort
18:54:01 [markva]
... lean to 3; 2b has political value by taking along community; but 3 better given time
18:54:19 [edsu]
loud and clear :-)
18:54:56 [markva]
Stu Weibel: frustrated; no productive outcomes all these years
18:55:10 [markva]
... adopt Web as the model
18:55:37 [markva]
... nobody understands DCAM
18:56:03 [markva]
... W3C published architecture document after actual implementation
18:56:45 [markva]
... revive effort: develop reference software; easily drop in data, generate linked data
18:57:12 [markva]
andypowe11: support Stu
18:57:48 [markva]
... DC efforts was trying to say Web is model; got confused
18:58:40 [markva]
TomB: gap: how to express constraints? Or not necessary?
18:58:48 [mini]
18:58:56 [jphipps]
Just because the DCAM is poorly expressed and poorly understood, doesn't obliterate its value as a model
18:59:19 [jphipps]
The world is NOT rdf-centric and is not likely to be
18:59:30 [markva]
Michael Panzer: was puzzled by description sets; but it does make ontological commitment clear
18:59:58 [markva]
... bundles of assertions have to make sense; requires way to communicate this
19:00:08 [markva]
... RDF struggles with same issues
19:00:27 [markva]
... DCMI should get involved with RDF development
19:00:28 [jphipps]
It's clear to me that even (maybe especially) the creators of the DCAM don't understand its value
19:00:53 [antoine]
zakim, ack mini
19:00:53 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
19:01:01 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
19:01:16 [markva]
mikael nilsson: DC close to data and data production
19:01:31 [markva]
... lots of RDF data being produced
19:02:19 [markva]
... different position now: syntax not problem anymore
19:03:01 [markva]
... RDF encounters problems that DC has too
19:03:38 [petej]
I agree w Andy that the RDF model is where we want to get to, and 3 seems to me the best option, tho I'm willing to be persuaded there is a value in 2b
19:03:46 [markva]
... look at problems, solve collaboratively
19:04:32 [markva]
... DCAM starting replicating stuff in RDF; RDF has broader base
19:05:12 [markva]
... DC produces vocabulary that's used in RDF; produces set of terms not linked to RDF in natural language
19:06:03 [markva]
presentation by Jeff Young
19:06:53 [kai]
Scribe: kai
19:06:54 [andypowe11]
i'm going to drop out at this point - can't see presentation or hear very well - sorry
19:07:12 [kai]
Jeff Young: Introduction to next presentation: Application Profiles in OWL
19:07:20 [antoine]
Scribenick: kai
19:07:25 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
19:07:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate emma
19:07:37 [edsu]
andypowe11: thanks for voicing your opinion so clearly
19:07:50 [kai]
Jeff Young: Want to make sure that I am not that familiar with DCAM and that I come from the Semantic Web world.
19:08:20 [andypowe11]
bye all - enjoy rest of the conf :-)
19:08:24 [kai]
... shows picture of FRBR as a DCAP domain model
19:08:35 [kai]
... from SWAP
19:08:52 [Zakim]
19:09:14 [kai]
... simple translation to OWL, classes, properties, ...
19:09:35 [kai]
... domain and range restrictions are used in OWL
19:10:18 [antoine]
jeff going through items at
19:10:44 [kai]
... I want to name the things, so I introduced UnnamedAbstraction...
19:11:15 [emma]
rrsagent, please make record public
19:11:33 [LarsG]
UnnamedAbstraction is a name for the union of Work, Manifestation and Item
19:11:37 [mini]
19:12:27 [kai]
... comparison to UML diagram
19:13:29 [Zakim]
19:14:18 [kai]
... cardinalities in OWL does not prevent anyone from ignoring them
19:14:37 [Zakim]
19:14:50 [mini]
zakim, ??P0 is me
19:14:50 [Zakim]
+mini; got it
19:15:18 [mini]
19:15:21 [JennRiley]
TomB: unclear to me if there's widespread support for keeping the dev't of some kind of constraint language. (I think we need this but didn't have a chance to get up to say so.) So I think we should verify the degree of support for that. And if there is support, discuss whether to do it within DCMI or use resources to push this in core RDF
19:16:42 [kai]
Jeff Young: Example from Toms Presentation with DCAM usage
19:17:07 [mini]
I would like to see this done with RDF community on board, in any case.
19:17:17 [petej]
TomB: I'm still here but can't hear very clearly
19:17:31 [mini]
Even the Topic Maps standard has a CL
19:17:42 [kai]
... DCMI Type Text is a Class but you can not be sure in the XML representation
19:17:56 [mini]
19:18:52 [kai]
... in RDF, a subject should be a concept
19:19:03 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
19:19:17 [kai]
... everything else about the concept should be get by dereferencing
19:19:52 [kai]
... I cashed it here to let it look more like a record. You want the additional data here. You want to cache.
19:20:35 [kai]
TomB: DCAM is historical and DC-RDF is also available.
19:21:12 [kai]
Jeff Young: This is an example how I progressed.
19:21:27 [TomB]
Jeff is showing the first page of XML output extracted by the wiki tool from SWAP
19:21:33 [kai]
... Now I try to convert that into OWL
19:22:22 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
19:22:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate emma
19:22:38 [kai]
... Types are already there, so let's look at the title
19:23:12 [TomB]
Jeff tripped up on fact that the first property cited in SWAP is dc:type (and he thinks in terms of rdf:type).
19:23:27 [TomB]
Michael Panzer is coming to the microphone, setting up.
19:23:29 [kai]
Switch to Michael Panzer
19:23:59 [TomB]
JennRiley - let's come back to this during the discussion in the second half
19:24:13 [kai]
Michael Panzer: Main difference between using OWL for DSP vs. DSP constraint language:
19:24:45 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
19:25:02 [kai]
... DSP CL example...
19:25:41 [kai]
... Title has mincardinality of 1
19:25:52 [kai]
... title has to be there
19:26:54 [kai]
... a title with two tipes would not be valid
19:27:16 [kai]
19:27:56 [kai]
... with two types you could infer that both have to be the same
19:28:09 [TomB]
Pellet - an inference language for OWL 2. Has a dialect that treats OWL as a constraint language.
19:28:58 [kai]
... test with pellet shows constraint violation
19:29:09 [kai]
... with removed type it is valid
19:29:13 [TomB]
Mikael: Nice because you add the constraints to the class.
19:30:02 [kai]
... People should remind that OWL approaches constraints in a different way
19:31:25 [kai]
Maja Z├╝mer: Explains that Work, Expression, ... are no subclasses, so there was a reason to model it that way
19:32:22 [kai]
Akira Mijasawa: How can we incorporate management properties of the record? Who made it, ... provenance information, management properties
19:33:27 [TomB]
Akira: Description set constraints in OWL - how can we incorporate [metametadata]?
19:33:43 [kai]
Jeff: Named Graphs would be a possible solution, probably not the best, but possible. We can attach properties to graphs
19:34:04 [TomB]
Jeff: Create new entity, "record", attach property to that. Not clear how much overlap how much DCAP and how much OWL can express. Not clear to me.
19:34:15 [kai]
Jeff: Lot of further work to be done, it is not yet clear what OWL can do for us, what DCAM can do...
19:34:19 [kai]
Coffe Break
19:35:14 [mini]
i'll drop out here, thanks for an interesting discussion.
19:35:19 [Zakim]
19:36:06 [mini]
I'll add a few lines of comments for the discussion later:
19:37:53 [mini]
1. We need very concrete functional requirements, what kinds of constraints do we need? what precisely is "validation"? based on example records and profiles.
19:38:25 [LarsG]
Perhaps we should forget about records. We use to think in records because that's what we had, but now we have new possibilities. The metametadata problem is really the same as with provenance, and there's work underway with that, too.
19:38:40 [mini]
2. We can test if OWL with constraint semantics can do it, and if DSPs can.
19:39:56 [mini]
3. The critical question is: based on DCAM, or based on RDF. I certainly prefer the latter, but requires DCMI to adopt RDF.
19:42:36 [mini]
I personally see many advantages and potential use cases for an RDF CL that can specify "valid" graphs down to every last triple.
19:43:08 [mini]
Now I'm off, good luck!
19:43:12 [Zakim]
19:47:54 [petej]
I'm leaving too. Thanks for discussions. I think Mikael's closing comments above summarise the key issues/questions very well
20:11:59 [kai]
Coffe break is over
20:12:15 [kai]
still scribing
20:12:42 [kai]
TomB: Repeats minis statements for the audience
20:12:58 [JennRiley]
JennRiley has joined #lld
20:15:16 [kai]
Marcia Zeng: Presentation about Application Profiles (based on FRSAD model) for subject domains
20:15:54 [kai]
... Questions: 1. Why do we need APs for SAD?
20:16:18 [kai]
... and two more...
20:16:57 [kai]
... FRSAD conceptual model. Notion of thema: anything that can be a subject of a work
20:17:01 [TomB]
s/for SAD/for FRSAD/
20:18:09 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
20:18:26 [kai]
... different ways to group things
20:18:47 [kai]
... examples: FRBR, SUMO
20:19:17 [kai]
... even within one domain it is difficult to map thesauri.
20:19:53 [kai]
... In general relationships between themas are hierarchical
20:20:13 [kai]
... but there are others, ALA came up with 100s
20:21:15 [kai]
... different types of KOS have different types to represent concepts: classifications, theauri, ...
20:21:48 [kai]
... 2nd question: How formally can the AP be defined?
20:22:20 [kai]
... communities have different domain models and usage guidelines
20:23:40 [kai]
... FRSAD-AP Functional Requirements:
20:23:54 [kai]
... in general vocabularies, but with specific different applications
20:24:39 [TomB]
FRSAD is a general model. Need more specific models for different types of vocabulary (classification versus thesauri), subject domains (medical vs consumer heatlh)...
20:24:44 [kai]
... FRSAD-AP domain model: a general model, needs more specific ones for different types of KOS
20:24:58 [TomB]
...what are the characteristics of your subject vocabulary?
20:25:04 [kai]
KOS = Knowledge Organization System (Thesauri, Classifications, ...)
20:26:33 [kai]
... Triples have challenges, e.g. how to preserve order
20:27:01 [TomB]
...specify the set of properties in a particular subject domain?
20:27:40 [kai]
... Nomen specifies different, general attributes
20:28:46 [kai]
... Usage Guidlines for FRSAD-AP: Recommendations, e.g. SKOS, MADS, standards (BS, ISO)
20:28:58 [pmurray]
pmurray has joined #lld
20:29:26 [kai]
... 3rd question: Difference between APs for subject domains and descriptive metadata
20:29:52 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
20:29:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate antoine
20:30:26 [kai]
... serious sameAs issues: Is a concept from one KOS the same than the concept of another?
20:31:26 [kai]
@ed: can you continue scribign?
20:31:36 [edsu]
20:31:39 [kai]
Switch to Gordon Dunsire
20:31:42 [kai]
Thanks :-)
20:31:58 [edsu]
Scribe: Ed Summers
20:32:06 [edsu]
ScribeNick: edsu
20:32:47 [TomB]
Thank you, Kai!
20:33:14 [emma]
zakim, who is on the phone ?
20:33:14 [Zakim]
On the phone I see antoine
20:33:23 [edsu]
Gordon Dunsire: Classification/subject schemes
20:33:35 [paulwalk]
paulwalk has joined #lld
20:33:59 [edsu]
Gordon Dunsire there are things in faceted classification schemes that need application profiles
20:34:55 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
20:34:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate emma
20:36:25 [edsu]
... semifaceted sub-divisions also have issues that require AP: DDC, LCSH
20:37:13 [edsu]
... some subdivsions are manadator in some schemes and optional in others
20:37:32 [edsu]
... also sequencing is important Law--Sociology, Sociology--Law
20:37:38 [antoine]
20:37:44 [edsu]
... something that APs need to address particulary for validation purposes
20:38:28 [edsu]
Gordon Dunsire: FRBRer vs ISBD: OWL vs DCAP
20:39:01 [edsu]
... I'm working with FRBR conceptual model: nothing mandatory, sequenced or encoded
20:39:31 [edsu]
... monolithic record split into 4 related parts, with some cardinality constraints
20:39:43 [edsu]
... seems to me the best way to model this is w/ OWL
20:40:09 [edsu]
... e.g Expression is a realization of *exactly* one Work
20:40:16 [edsu]
... not sure how to model that in AP
20:40:47 [edsu]
... contrasted w/ ISBD - which is a data model
20:41:20 [edsu]
.. made up 9 separate sections or areas, sequencing is very important
20:41:58 [edsu]
... there is also 'manditory if applicable" which makes some things required depending on the resource being described
20:42:20 [edsu]
... seems to me the best way to model that is a DC application profile
20:42:47 [edsu]
... there are aggregations
20:43:12 [edsu]
... I'm wondering if there need to be 2 separate approaches, and how others would do it
20:43:32 [edsu]
TomB: any questions?
20:44:51 [edsu]
TomB: I'd like to circle back to the OWL method, I understood from the discussion before the break that the idea was to model constraints with OWL, and to validate those constraints with closed world assumptions
20:45:55 [edsu]
... in pellet the owl is used to generate a sparql query to validate
20:46:26 [edsu]
... can someone confirm this?
20:47:54 [edsu]
Michael Panzer: pellet is an owl2 reasoner, for doing inferencing ... but there is a project called pellet integrity constraint validator
20:48:46 [edsu]
... it doesn't change anything in your owl, but it generates sparql queries from the owl ... the same owl is used for both the inferencing and the validation
20:50:19 [edsu]
... the integrity constraints wouldn't generate any inferences
20:51:05 [edsu]
xxx: i'm trying to separate what it is, from what you are doing with it
20:51:22 [JennRiley]
edsu: It's Karen Smith-Yoshimura, OCLC Research
20:51:37 [edsu]
... sequencing (how things are presented) needs to vary on language context, and the application
20:51:58 [edsu]
s/xxx/Karen Smith Yoshimura/
20:52:18 [edsu]
... I'm not sure what happens with translations
20:52:47 [edsu]
TomB: i wonder if jon or corey might have some thoughts
20:53:16 [edsu]
... do RDF and linked data need standard approaches to "application profiles"?
20:53:35 [edsu]
Stu: do application profiles need to consider RDF/LInked data to be useful?
20:54:15 [edsu]
Antoine: that's a valid question. in rdf there isn't so much guidance on how to reuse vocabularies. i think semweb community could benefit from this
20:54:56 [edsu]
JonPhipps: an application profile at this point is documentation, too many organizations lack the documentation about their data, similar to what mike bergman talked about this morning
20:55:47 [edsu]
TomB: are there only documentation requirements, or do we need to express constraints?
20:56:07 [edsu]
JonPhipps: i'm deeply critical of people who think they have the answers in this space
20:56:10 [edsu]
20:56:20 [edsu]
TomB: not looking for answers, but suggestions
20:57:18 [edsu]
JonPhipps: if you don't document what your data is, are you really communicating anything? It seems essential for trust.
20:58:07 [edsu]
Gordon Dunsire: i think isbd would be a lot easier to understand as an AP. for communicating what this thing is
20:58:40 [edsu]
emma: i don't feel like i can say what's good for rdf, but the library community needs something that's like AP but for the linked data world
20:59:41 [edsu]
TomB: i'm hearing a requirement to communicate the purpose and substance of a metadata model to a community for coherence of data and sharing an approach
21:00:06 [edsu]
... not hearing a clear requirement for standardizing an approach to modeling constraints for validation. does anyone want to argue for that?
21:00:56 [edsu]
Gordon Dunsire: look at the FRBR model, if you convert legacy data to that model, having something you can validate aggregations of triples is quire important
21:01:05 [edsu]
21:02:33 [edsu]
JennRiley: i agree, there are two reasons validation is important: it makes tool support easier ; it's also important for public relations, to constrain the world of linked data, and allows you to scope the web of data into manageable chunks (my wording)
21:03:08 [edsu]
TomB: is the Description Set Profile language a good start at that?
21:03:49 [edsu]
JennRiley: i don't have an opinion about whether it needs to be dcmi related
21:04:31 [edsu]
Jeff Young: i think we should come up with some example use cases, it's hard to say -- we are grasping here
21:04:57 [edsu]
TomB: can we identify differenct scenarios for different types of profiles?
21:05:09 [edsu]
21:05:53 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
21:05:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate emma
21:06:03 [edsu]
JonPhipps: there is creation metadata, there is the publishing metadata, and there is the consumption of the metadata
21:06:40 [edsu]
... there isn't a notion of constraints around publishing / consuming data for rdf ; those are areas that need to be covered by an AP
21:07:44 [edsu]
antoine: there is agreement that some guidance should be provided when using vocabularies, but does this require a langauge?
21:08:40 [edsu]
... the fact that there was a formal language for the description set profile wasn't useful to me
21:09:10 [edsu]
JonPhipps: i second that
21:10:59 [emma]
Markva asked wether Antoine's comment implied to stop effort on DCAM
21:12:31 [edsu]
TomB: we have the singapore framework, if we ignore the DCAM is the rest valid?
21:12:47 [edsu]
[Singapore Framework diagram on screen]
21:14:48 [edsu]
Diane Hillman: the idea that we will have to explain AP in terms of RDF...i've been through lots of phases of technical wonder. i'm worried that we are getting too far into thinking in one mode, need more general thinking than that
21:15:34 [edsu]
JonPhipps gesturing at large parts of the Singampore Framework diagram and saying it is documentation related
21:15:56 [edsu]
TomB: what about data format?
21:16:47 [edsu]
JonPhipps: that's a specification, perhaps somewhere else like SKOS
21:17:21 [edsu]
(thumbs up from the modelers in the back)
21:17:49 [edsu]
Michael Panzer: the abstract model is a meta model, and in this way in clashes with RDF
21:18:38 [edsu]
... how would you do some of the things in the DCAM with OWL? are you going to throw out some requirements?
21:19:34 [edsu]
... we could get involved in rdf next steps. but in the end dcam and rdf are at odds, and one must win
21:20:40 [edsu]
Stu: Jon's assertion that we have confused syntax and semantics is a really strong point
21:21:51 [edsu]
... i wonder if someone is willing and able to explain what the abstract model means. we know how to describe items. i don't understand the singapore framework. we've got models that we don't believe. we haven't connected them with what we are trying to do.
21:23:42 [edsu]
... I'm not saying DCAM or RDF must win. if we were to sit down and write a document that would not allow us to use models, triples, domain models ... a plain natural langauge description of what we are trying to do...i tried to write about it in my blog and i got feedback that I didn't understand it.
21:24:45 [edsu]
... if you can't describe what the framwork is to practitioners then we can't move forward
21:25:37 [edsu]
JonPhipps: the value of the upper two layers is that they allow us to document a domain model, in a way that is independent of the bottom layer (the implementation)
21:26:06 [edsu]
... it provides a valuable documentation model, there are bits that are too technical. it would help to have it rewritten in a way that's understandable.
21:26:43 [edsu]
markva: could add some documents that explain it in very clear ways, like what the owl community has done
21:27:22 [edsu]
... could add some documents that explain how to go from the conceptual level to the implementation
21:28:02 [edsu]
antoine: keeping the rdf reference you can do without a reference implementation guideline, that might not even express all the requirements
21:29:38 [edsu]
TomB: Michael do you think you can do without this bottom layer of RDF?
21:30:08 [edsu]
Michael Panzer: the question is more where the wind is blowing
21:30:45 [edsu]
... why build it on RDF? do we do it because it's a good brand, or that it's useful? how important is that?
21:31:17 [edsu]
... the DC of working with metadata, will enough people find it useful without anchoring it to the RDF specs?
21:31:55 [edsu]
JonPhipps: perhaps the bottom layer can be informative, and the middle layers would be normative
21:32:49 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
21:32:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate emma
21:32:56 [edsu]
TomB: adjourned
21:33:10 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
21:33:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate emma
21:33:18 [emma]
thans edsu !
21:33:23 [edsu]
sure :-)
21:33:33 [edsu]
scribing prevented me from saying something stupid :-)
21:33:49 [emma]
we won't record that one in the minutes ;-)
21:37:47 [Zakim]
21:37:49 [Zakim]
INC_LLDXG()2:00PM has ended
21:37:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were antoine, mini, +44.798.947.aaaa, andypowe11, +44.117.925.aabb, petej, +44.122.531.aacc
21:40:49 [emma]
zakim, bye
21:40:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #lld
21:41:16 [emma]
rrsagent, bye
21:41:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items