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