IRC log of lld on 2010-10-24
Timestamps are in UTC.
12:48:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #lld
12:48:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
12:49:30 [emma]
rrsagent, please make record public
12:50:11 [emma]
Chair: Emmanuelle, Tom, Antoine
12:51:53 [emma]
Present: Tom, Ray, Mark, Antoine, Karen, Jeff, Emmanuelle
13:01:37 [paulwalk]
paulwalk has joined #lld
13:01:54 [paulwalk]
Locah Project blog post:
13:01:55 [Jeff]
Jeff has joined #lld
13:02:39 [rayd]
rayd has joined #lld
13:02:41 [kcoyle]
kcoyle has joined #lld
13:06:30 [antoine]
antoine has joined #lld
13:07:28 [markva]
markva has joined #lld
13:09:49 [Zakim]
INC_LLDXG(INC_LLDXG)8:30AM has now started
13:09:50 [rayd]
topic list for today
13:09:56 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
13:10:12 [kcoyle]
13:10:13 [rayd]
topic list was created as a placeholder originally
13:10:20 [antoine]
sakim, IPcaller is me
13:10:25 [antoine]
zakim, IPcaller is me
13:10:25 [Zakim]
+antoine; got it
13:10:26 [rayd]
no is good time to figure it out
13:10:48 [rayd]
some relate to use cases, some are short and we haven't figured them out etc
13:11:08 [TomB]
TomB has joined #lld
13:11:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
TomB
13:11:45 [rayd]
discussion should be deliverable oriented, focused discussion
13:11:58 [rayd]
classify discussion into three areas
13:12:12 [rayd]
1.
13:12:21 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
13:12:32 [rayd]
2. requirements
13:12:52 [rayd]
issues not in use cases
13:13:05 [rayd]
3. deliverables. things we can achieve
13:13:29 [rayd]
1. c overed by use cases.
13:13:46 [michaelp]
michaelp has joined #lld
13:14:05 [TomB]
rrsagent, bookmark
13:14:05 [RRSAgent]
See
13:14:10 [TomB]
zakim, this will be lld
13:14:10 [Zakim]
ok, TomB, I see INC_LLDXG(INC_LLDXG)8:30AM already started
13:14:15 [TomB]
Meeting: LLD XG
13:14:21 [TomB]
Chair: Emmanuelle
13:14:34 [TomB]
rrsagent, please make record public
13:15:20 [rayd]
new topics might be created in the course of this discussion
13:15:29 [rayd]
for example, recommended software
13:15:37 [LarsG]
LarsG has joined #lld
13:16:12 [kai]
kai has joined #lld
13:16:29 [rayd]
first topic, knowledge representation
13:16:52 [GordonD]
GordonD has joined #lld
13:17:48 [rayd]
all about which vocabularies we are using.
13:18:58 [rayd]
mikep: doesn't fit with a particular use case.
13:20:32 [TomB]
TomB has joined #lld
13:20:47 [emma]
...they are all about how we represent our domain knowledge
13:20:49 [TomB]
Agenda:
13:21:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
TomB
13:21:14 [rayd]
frsad, for example, has simple model how do we represent that, event or concept
13:21:38 [rayd]
a knowledge representation question
13:22:09 [rayd]
emanuelle: how to model domain
13:22:16 [marcia]
marcia has joined #lld
13:22:48 [rayd]
emanuelle: do we want to do in group, or is it for future.
13:24:22 [rayd]
marcia: more than one way to do it. decision to be made by people who assign subject terms
13:24:43 [LarsG]
Present+: Alexander, Kai, Gordon, Lars
13:24:50 [marcia]
FRSAD
13:25:51 [TomB]
Michael: One of the main ideas of semantic Web: use a URI for real stuff.
13:26:42 [marcia]
FRSAD is a conceptual model. SKOS can be used to implment the model. But there are two options: SKOS only (lables are properties of a concept) or SKOS + extension for labels
13:27:37 [rayd]
antoine: hard to go into this detail for every model.
13:27:55 [TomB]
Gordon: Generally, we should be recommending VESes as ranges.
13:28:16 [rayd]
gordon: general good practice for linked data. range should be a URI.
13:29:04 [rayd]
emma: need best practice for modelling. is it possible to do this in our timeframe.
13:29:37 [rayd]
mikeB: reqiurement rather than best practice
13:31:43 [TomB]
Marcia: Differentiate label - FRSAD - SKOS-XL. SKOS without XL works for some vocabularies. We should say: "Here are the two approaches".
13:32:51 [antoine]
s/mikeB/michaelp
13:32:58 [TomB]
Marcia: present different recipes for people to decide.
13:33:07 [rayd]
non bibliographic data
13:33:17 [marma]
marma has joined #lld
13:33:30 [marcia]
SKOS eXtension for Labels (SKOS-XL)
13:33:45 [rayd]
there is one circulation and an identifier use case
13:34:31 [rayd]
emma: rec. dev. is outside our scope. there are plenty of statistical ontologies
13:34:39 [TomB]
Emma: If a vocabulary is missing, we can point it out.
13:35:25 [rayd]
gordon: appl profile for collection description.
13:35:26 [markva]
anybody interested in statistics models should look at
13:35:49 [TomB]
Gordon: There is a Dublin Core application profile for Collection Description -
13:36:23 [rayd]
gordon: there are models in other domains, we don't have to invent everything
13:36:33 [rayd]
next: citations
13:36:48 [rayd]
use cases
13:37:05 [rayd]
next application profiles
13:38:10 [rayd]
tom: requirement to clarify what an app profile is and that there are different approaches, point to one or two, some issues
13:38:25 [rayd]
karen: a small number of methodologies
13:38:35 [TomB]
Karen: Libraries should try to converge on some common application profiles.
13:39:07 [rayd]
antoine: wonder whether previous item, frs, should be with app profiles.
13:40:01 [rayd]
tom: should there be something on isbd?
13:40:09 [rayd]
gordon: yes
13:40:20 [rayd]
karen: isnt isbd itself an app model
13:40:31 [rayd]
gordon: no it's a data model
13:40:32 [marcia]
ISBD is a data model
13:41:14 [rayd]
gordon: its flat, premarc, no concept of authority data
13:41:23 [TomB]
Suggest that we mention role of application profiles not only in ISBD but in RDA.
13:41:55 [rayd]
marcia: applic. profile is more like what steps you need to follow
13:42:28 [rayd]
tom: role of this group not to say it's one or the other (other being syntax) but point out areas like rda etc
13:44:34 [marcia]
Question was if APs are sets of documentations, or APs are technical specifications to be implmented.
13:44:51 [rayd]
john: "style" of appl. profile?.
13:45:54 [rayd]
next legacy data, first subtopic inventory available linked data
13:46:35 [rayd]
gordon: maintenance issue, anything we identify will be out of date soon
13:47:47 [rayd]
tom: do it on fringes but not a core activity
13:48:30 [rayd]
next vocabularies statuses
13:48:47 [rayd]
gordon: moving targets
13:50:14 [rayd]
karen: difficult for us to know what's being developed and we need better communication channel.
13:51:50 [rayd]
next Translation of data in MARC format to linked data
13:52:39 [rayd]
mike: translation of data or translation of marc?
13:52:53 [rayd]
latter
13:53:42 [rayd]
"should marc have an rdf representation"
13:54:35 [rayd]
gordon: at least half dozen efforts, experimental, group should take note of that
13:55:31 [rayd]
next Populating reference data models when legacy data is not perfectly fitting
13:55:35 [TomB]
My understanding of this discussion: In Gordon's update of status of new RDF vocabularies (FRBR, etc) - comment on desirability (or not) of expressing the MARC model in RDF
13:57:00 [TomB]
...in addition to the issue of converting MARC records into RDF (not necessarily using an RDF representation of MARC)
13:57:18 [antoine]
Scribenick: markva
13:57:23 [antoine]
Scribe: Mark van Assem
13:57:52 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
13:57:52 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
antoine
13:58:12 [markva]
GordonD: frbr is 4 records instead of one
13:58:24 [markva]
... application profile bridges gap
13:58:45 [TomB]
Gordon: Coming around to thinking: MARC to RDF triples, then build it into an ISBD record, or whatever. The promise of linked data, focus shifts from record to statement. Application profile fills the gap. Break down, then build back up.
13:59:04 [markva]
next [LLD. COMMON-MODEL]
13:59:22 [markva]
is same as previous
14:00:01 [markva]
next [LLD. AUTHORITIES] is in use cases
14:00:56 [markva]
TomB: problem with wording of the Topic, entities = vocabulaires?
14:01:30 [markva]
kcoyle: SKOS is handy to put authorities into
14:02:13 [markva]
alex: already have FRAD
14:02:36 [markva]
GordonD: authority data is about labels, not entities themselves
14:03:03 [markva]
Jeff: but SKOS (XL) does both
14:03:52 [markva]
kcoyle: were two separate databases; in this new world how we model that
14:03:58 [markva]
emma: req or not?
14:04:08 [markva]
kcoyle: comes up in use cases
14:04:23 [markva]
GordonD: it's about bib entities vs. real world entities
14:04:26 [TomB]
Gordon: The issue here is bibliographic entities versus real-world entities.
14:04:47 [markva]
michaelp: this is what KR topic is about we discussed in begin
14:04:47 [TomB]
Michael: LD challenges our notion that biblio entities are completely cut off from real-world entities.
14:05:28 [markva]
michaelp: litmus test for FRs
14:05:45 [TomB]
Michael: "crossing the streams" - challenges us to think of authority files in a different way.
14:06:13 [markva]
GordonD: is there 1-1 relationship between entities and bib enty within semweb?
14:06:41 [markva]
emma: put it in deliverable
14:06:54 [TomB]
Karen: Used to be a database in the back room.
14:06:56 [edsu]
s/enty/entity/
14:07:35 [marma]
Data is here:
14:07:45 [TomB]
Jeff: In VIAF, we are identifying a person as a concept - Martin suggested using FOAF.
14:07:54 [TomB]
Martin, is that correct?
14:07:56 [markva]
Antoine: keep the two topics separate
14:08:18 [markva]
.. be aware that authority data diff of real world
14:08:27 [markva]
.. then how to articulate link
14:08:48 [markva]
.. separate issue and practical solutions, patterns, and cases that use them
14:08:50 [marcia]
Martin suggested to use foaf:focus to link the foaf:person to skos:concept
14:09:18 [TomB]
Thank you, Marcia.
14:10:08 [TomB]
s/we are identifying a person as a concept//
14:10:14 [markva]
.. observable in VIAF, produce skos:Concept and foaf:Person from same piece of data
14:10:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
TomB
14:10:48 [markva]
next [LLD. SPECIFIC-VOCABS]
14:11:49 [markva]
next [LLD. SKOS-FOR-INTEGRATED-KOS]
14:12:06 [markva]
what's integrated?
14:12:23 [markva]
marcia: making connections between vocabs; alignments
14:12:58 [markva]
marcia: generate superstructure behind linked vocabularies, like UMLS and HILT
14:13:57 [markva]
marcia: use case bernard and gordon from user point of view find things without being aware of underlying diff vocabs
14:14:46 [markva]
marcia: available tool or facility; still gap if it's not linked data
14:15:03 [markva]
kcoyle: include in use case exploration:
14:15:29 [markva]
GordonD: existing research into relations that appeared
14:15:40 [markva]
.. SKOS rejected this amount of detail
14:15:54 [markva]
.. not adequate for use case in cluster of vocab merging
14:16:33 [markva]
.. is requirement for more complicated model than SKOS, to provide linked data representations to provide terminology services to users
14:16:34 [TomB]
Gordon: awhile ago, a group came up with 15 relations for vocabulary alignment. SKOS looked at this and rejected the complexity. But there is a requirement for something more complex than SKOS, particularly in the subject area, in order to provide terminology services to end users.
14:17:28 [markva]
marcia: could be use case based on that
14:18:00 [TomB]
Marcia: Terminology mapping backend - available terminology registries - already there, but no link yet with Linked data environment.
14:18:05 [markva]
emma: put in use case
14:18:29 [markva]
michaelp: terminology registry use case or a mapping use case?
14:19:11 [markva]
GordonD: use case that refers to existing research papers; it's well-researched, e.g. HIILT reports
14:19:20 [TomB]
Gordon: This problem has been well-researched, HILT conference on interoperability - show the complexity.
14:20:10 [LarsG]
GordonD: we can re-use the SKOS use case for HILT
14:20:23 [TomB]
Gordon: Look at the SKOS Use cases and cite them here - also important in establishing the relationship between SKOS and ...
14:20:39 [markva]
ACTION: GordonD and antoine to study use cases that relate to vocabulary merging use case
14:21:44 [markva]
next [LLD. SKOS-MULTILINGUAL] is a use case
14:22:22 [markva]
next [LLD. SKOS-LIB-KOS] in deliverables
14:22:41 [markva]
michaelp: is it about what's been done or what difficulties are
14:22:53 [markva]
GordonD: it's what me and antoine just agreed to look at
14:23:26 [markva]
next [LLD. PERSON-NAMES]
14:23:46 [markva]
rayd: covered in my use case
14:24:09 [markva]
emma: put in deliverables together with authority data
14:24:20 [markva]
antoine: and refer from there to use cases
14:24:47 [markva]
antoine: use cases can be moved into requirements if turns out it was not done
14:26:03 [markva]
... merge person-names and person-metadata
14:26:19 [markva]
next LLD. IDENTIFIERS] is use case
14:27:06 [markva]
next [LLD. LEGACY-IDS] is requirement
14:27:34 [markva]
kcoyle: issue e.g. ISBN for manifestation; need to give advice
14:27:42 [markva]
.. think about what ID means
14:28:16 [markva]
TomB: LCSH cite as example
14:28:39 [markva]
LarsG: related to digital preservation
14:28:52 [markva]
.. can of worms; need reqs or recommendations
14:29:15 [markva]
GordonD: need to expose it as can of worms
14:29:29 [edsu]
mmmm, worms
14:29:38 [markva]
next [LLD. NAMESPACES]
14:29:50 [markva]
into requirements
14:30:34 [markva]
TomB: ld principle that URI resolve to representation
14:30:45 [markva]
antoine: could we refer to webarch?
14:30:57 [markva]
TomB: part of TBL's four points
14:31:31 [markva]
LarsG: not particular topic for lld
14:31:45 [markva]
emma: do we need to address namespace policy?
14:32:15 [markva]
TomB: yes, libraries should have persistence policies, and principles for vocab evolution
14:32:30 [markva]
.. can URI be repurposed? can meaning evolve?
14:33:06 [markva]
kcoyle: issue what do you do with multiple copies? how do you identify them?
14:33:36 [markva]
.. important part of structure people need to understand; lot in here that people need to understand so that they do proper LD
14:34:00 [markva]
antoine: nothing library-specific about it
14:34:16 [markva]
kcoyle: libraries bring up interesting cases
14:34:43 [markva]
.. library experience should inform web experience
14:36:15 [markva]
marcia: other communities gathering resources have no clear roadmap
14:36:20 [markva]
??:
14:36:59 [markva]
antoine: for the moment URIs not an option, after a while URIs are dead
14:37:08 [markva]
.. library practice in web context is poor
14:37:15 [markva]
.. we cannot improve that
14:37:27 [markva]
emma: should say that practice should be better
14:37:57 [markva]
LarsG: put persistent identification and resolution services into requirements
14:48:58 [emma]
emma has joined #lld
15:07:17 [antoine]
zakim, who is here?
15:07:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see antoine
15:07:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see emma, marma, TomB, GordonD, michaelp, charper, markva, antoine, kcoyle, paulwalk, RRSAgent, Zakim, ww, edsu
15:07:56 [antoine]
scribe: Michael
15:08:01 [antoine]
scribenick: michaelp
15:08:20 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:08:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
antoine
15:10:04 [Ijon]
Ijon has joined #lld
15:11:08 [michaelp]
scribenick: michaelp
15:11:36 [michaelp]
emma: Next section: Semantic web environment and issues
15:12:12 [michaelp]
s/environment and issues/environmental issues
15:12:32 [michaelp]
... Group with requirements
15:12:41 [michaelp]
... Next: Linking across datasets
15:13:40 [michaelp]
... What links to what? Group with inventory of datasets in deliverables
15:14:19 [michaelp]
Jeff: People could still use OWl to show waht is being linked without relying on an inventory
15:14:28 [michaelp]
s/waht/what
15:14:56 [michaelp]
Jeff: Self-description using OWL without defining new level of properties
15:15:22 [michaelp]
emma: Next: Alignment of vocabs
15:15:55 [michaelp]
antoine: Related to previous discussions about skos mapping properties
15:16:15 [michaelp]
GordonD: Also about mapping models that are independent of SKOS
15:16:35 [michaelp]
... They are different mapping approaches
15:16:36 [marcia]
marcia has joined #lld
15:16:44 [michaelp]
s/They/There
15:16:58 [michaelp]
emma: Next: Alignment of real-world-resource identifiers
15:17:18 [michaelp]
... Environmental issue
15:17:27 [michaelp]
Antoine: Put into cases for future action
15:17:35 [michaelp]
... Bernard might investigate
15:18:13 [michaelp]
RayD: about alignment or assignment?
15:18:19 [charper]
charper has joined #lld
15:18:56 [michaelp]
antoine: Relating library authority file concepts to identifiers for the real thing
15:19:08 [michaelp]
kcoyle: What is meant with alignment?
15:19:19 [michaelp]
... Bringing together if there is more than one?
15:19:33 [michaelp]
TomB: And specifying realtionsjip between tham
15:19:37 [michaelp]
s/tham/them
15:19:51 [michaelp]
emma: Next one: The Linked Data paradigm and the Metadata Record paradigm
15:20:06 [michaelp]
... Models for packaging Linked Data in records, e.g., Named Graphs
15:20:17 [michaelp]
.. and Provenance of Linked Data
15:20:57 [michaelp]
Jeff: Mikael email indicates a lot of tension between metadata models and domain models.
15:21:09 [michaelp]
... Lot of confusion between these paradigms
15:21:23 [michaelp]
s/Mikael/Mikael's
15:21:32 [TomB]
ACTION: Tom to re-categorize AGRIS under Bibliographic Data.
15:21:48 [michaelp]
... How can we help people to think in these paradigms?
15:22:10 [michaelp]
kcoyle: Educational vs. proof of concept. These are two different goals.
15:22:39 [michaelp]
... Can we create the data we want to create without using the records paradigm.
15:23:10 [michaelp]
John: I don't think we can create data in absence of a record model.
15:23:49 [michaelp]
... Creation, dissemination, and consumption.
15:24:14 [michaelp]
... Latter two can happen without record. First one cannot.
15:24:42 [michaelp]
antoine: Some of the choices about the right URI in LD look like record building.
15:25:26 [michaelp]
... Even on the basic level about which triples you send out.
15:26:11 [michaelp]
marcia: Do you mean the presence of an application profile at the time of creation
15:26:17 [Jeff]
Jeff has joined #lld
15:26:30 [Jeff]
Jeff has left #lld
15:26:38 [Jeff]
Jeff has joined #lld
15:26:47 [michaelp]
Diane: Can we use aggregated view instead of record view?
15:27:11 [michaelp]
GordonD: Catalogers create a package of descriptions.
15:27:36 [michaelp]
Diane: We need to carefully examine those assumptions.
15:28:07 [michaelp]
... Catalogers don't start from nothing and arrive at something that they consider complete.
15:28:24 [antoine]
packaging in linked data dissemination context ->
15:28:34 [michaelp]
GordonD: Rarely info in record is created from scratch
15:28:47 [michaelp]
... Reliance on external authority and other sources
15:29:17 [michaelp]
Marcia: From the abstract mode a record is an aggregate of other description sets.
15:29:22 [michaelp]
s/mode/model
15:30:19 [michaelp]
?: But, if things are added, can this info be consumed back into your aggregated set?
15:30:40 [michaelp]
GordonD: Triples will be out there. Aggregation will happen on the fly.
15:30:51 [michaelp]
emma: We have to cut her.e
15:31:01 [michaelp]
... It is in the requirements.
15:31:07 [markva]
s/her.e/here
15:31:10 [TomB]
Gordon: Moving to a "post-coordinated" approach.
15:31:11 [michaelp]
s/her.e/here
15:31:27 [michaelp]
emma: provenance
15:31:49 [michaelp]
kcoyle: It is an requirement. Not specific to LLD.
15:32:14 [michaelp]
antoine: We can put it in the use case and probably look at the work of the provenance task group.
15:33:07 [michaelp]
emma: We can extract some requirements if we put it in the use case category.
15:33:25 [michaelp]
Kai: Strongly related to the record / description set issue.
15:33:39 [michaelp]
emma: Next: REST patterns for Linked Data
15:34:07 [michaelp]
Jeff: Based on OWL, there is a one-to-many relationship between things
15:34:18 [michaelp]
... This should be visible in the URI patterns.
15:34:39 [michaelp]
... So they become hackable and provide for content-negotion
15:34:52 [michaelp]
... All the way back to real-world objects
15:35:05 [TomB]
Jeff: URIs can be made hackable. I like using generic resources. As you hack back, go from representation to generic resource. Hack back on the slash, go back to... etc etc
15:35:08 [michaelp]
emma: Is related to best practice for indentifiers.
15:35:54 [TomB]
Michael: This can be visualized in one slide.
15:36:16 [michaelp]
antoine: This belongs to SW-Indentifier
15:36:26 [michaelp]
TomB: Best practice or research?
15:36:54 [michaelp]
antoine: Best practice, comparable to best practice document for eGovernment
15:37:51 [michaelp]
Jeff: Sometimes wrong URI patterns limit your choices, eg, for mobile presentation
15:38:04 [michaelp]
... We shouldn't have to write one-off systems.
15:38:23 [michaelp]
... We shpould create a framework that generates those pattern automatically.
15:38:46 [michaelp]
Alexander: Agreed. If we can agree on ID patterns, that would be helpful to others in the community
15:39:15 [michaelp]
TomB: I am uneasy about this group saying "we think this is the answe"
15:39:41 [michaelp]
edsu: Cool URIs for the semantic web defines the URI patterns just fine.
15:39:55 [TomB]
Ed: To me, Cool URIs defines the pattern - no need to do it again.
15:40:18 [TomB]
Michael: But that is very low-level. Does not deal with relationship between organized knowledge and the world (in detail).
15:40:36 [TomB]
Alex: Do we also consider patterns for modeling data?
15:40:50 [TomB]
Emma: No, it is in application profiles.
15:40:58 [michaelp]
Alexander: Patterns not the same as application profiles.
15:41:08 [TomB]
Alex: Software engineering perspective: things that tell me on a basic level.
15:41:41 [michaelp]
emma: Created the topic "patters" and added it to requirements.
15:41:59 [TomB]
ACTION: Jeff to review the UK eGovernment document on identifiers.
15:42:23 [michaelp]
antoine: Jeff to elaborate on the document
15:42:33 [michaelp]
emma: Next: Conversion issues, e.g., URIs, content negotiation, RDF compatibility
15:42:58 [michaelp]
Kcoyle: Don't know what it means. Very broad.
15:43:07 [michaelp]
Antoine: Could we trash it?
15:43:11 [michaelp]
emma: OK
15:43:23 [michaelp]
... Next:.
15:43:53 [michaelp]
... Related to Gordon's and Antoine's UC?
15:44:08 [michaelp]
Antone: This is more realted to KOS alignment.
15:44:45 [michaelp]
Emma: Maybe we have a gap here in the use cases.
15:45:12 [michaelp]
... We need a use case about the appropriateness of SKOS to cover controlled vocabularies in LLD.
15:45:22 [michaelp]
Antoine: Some is covered in postponed SKOS issues.
15:45:35 [michaelp]
Emma: Should check there.
15:45:51 [michaelp]
Antoine: We should put it in the vocabulary section.
15:46:02 [michaelp]
Emma: Next: extraction of semantic data
15:46:54 [michaelp]
kcoyle: Perhaps Marcia can explain what is meant her.e
15:47:23 [edsu]
seems like the url for that spec from the UK about URL patterns has moved or been removed, it used to be at
15:49:06 [edsu]
definitely ironic :-)
15:49:33 [michaelp]
marcia: The original email was about a framework of showing things.
15:49:43 [edsu]
ahh, here's the new url for it
15:50:04 [michaelp]
kcoyle: Let's put it in the deliverables so we remember to look at it when we prepare deliverable.s
15:50:22 [michaelp]
emma: next: linked data management, hosting, and preservation
15:50:32 [michaelp]
... vocabulary-specific aspects of management, hosting, and presentation
15:50:55 [michaelp]
kcoyle: related to discussion about metadata registries. We need use case.
15:51:01 [michaelp]
emma: Put it in use case.
15:51:11 [michaelp]
... Next: Versioning, updates
15:51:31 [michaelp]
kcoyle: Next three go together. We need a use case for all of them.
15:51:40 [michaelp]
... Dissemination mechanisms: RDF schemas, RDFa, bulk download, feeds, SPARQL...
15:52:02 [michaelp]
... DCMI-RDA task group would be a great use case.
15:52:15 [michaelp]
GordonD: Many issues have surfaced there.
15:52:25 [michaelp]
emma: ssues of Web architecture, e.g., persistent URI design best practices, HTTP
15:52:33 [michaelp]
s/ssues/Issues
15:52:57 [michaelp]
Alexander: I don't see pattern as architecture patterns, more like modeling recommendations.
15:53:23 [michaelp]
... We should tell peoples about our experiences with our modeling.
15:53:37 [michaelp]
emma: Should it be a use case?
15:54:18 [michaelp]
kcoyle: We can require things that we don't know how to do.
15:54:28 [michaelp]
... It could be a requirement.
15:54:37 [michaelp]
emma: Related to "data caching"?
15:54:54 [michaelp]
Alexander: Broader context. Ingestions, dissemination.
15:55:35 [michaelp]
... I want to have a library system that is able to deal with linked data together with classical library data
15:55:39 [Marcia]
Marcia has joined #lld
15:55:41 [michaelp]
Mark: Does that exist?
15:55:46 [michaelp]
Alexander: No.
15:56:04 [michaelp]
Mark: We have that covered in software recommendation.
15:56:22 [michaelp]
Alexander: Not so much the issue what to use, but how to use the tools.
15:56:37 [michaelp]
... The IT departments have systems that are going to stay there for a long time.
15:57:06 [michaelp]
... We have to come up with ways with doing new stuff with existing infrastructure.
15:57:22 [michaelp]
... We are generating LD at runtime. This is not the right approach.
15:57:39 [antoine]
Scribenick:Jeff
15:57:43 [antoine]
Scribe: Jeff
15:57:51 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft agent
15:57:51 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please draft agent', antoine. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:57:57 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
15:57:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
antoine
15:58:00 [michaelp]
Jeff: I care about that also
15:58:05 [michaelp]
Martin: Me also.
15:58:18 [michaelp]
... Perhaps we can do something togethe.r
16:00:44 [Jeff]
ACTION: Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP elaborabe on general purpose IT archtiecture for dealing with linked data with caching feature
16:01:04 [antoine]
->
16:01:14 [Jeff]
Ontology discovery and dissemination [DATA. ONTOLOGY-DISCOVERY]
16:02:21 [Jeff]
kcoyle: covered in registry part, discovery part, vocabulary, need a way to find ontologies
16:02:59 [antoine]
Present+: Martin, Jeff, Michael, Jon, Marcia, Ray, Paul
16:03:10 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:03:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
antoine
16:04:02 [Jeff]
marcia: difference between vocabularies/ontologies. format-related
16:05:58 [Jeff]
kcoyle: different perspectives on vocabularies: things divided into class, instance, properties, (ontologies?) vs. different vocabularies naming concepts
16:06:10 [Jeff]
kcoyle: no vocabulary of vocabularies
16:06:45 [Jeff]
kcoyle: need to be clear about what we mean when we use the term "vocabulary"
16:06:52 [Jeff]
# Search Engine Optimization for Library Data Google Rich Snippets, Yahoo SearchMonkey, Facbook's OpenGraph Protocol [edsu, jphipps] [DATA. SEARCH-OPTIMISATION]
16:07:22 [Jeff]
alexander: seems to be close to architecture topic
16:08:19 [jphipps]
jphipps has joined #lld
16:08:36 [Jeff]
antoine: these systems may be able to understand library models in the future
16:08:56 [Jeff]
emma: this needs a use case
16:09:40 [Jeff]
antoine: Europeana wants to put RDFa in HTML
16:09:55 [edsu]
facebook's rdfa has a notion of book, author, movie
16:09:57 [Jeff]
TomB: is there a role of application profiles in search (e.g. Google)
16:10:15 [edsu]
also isbn :-)
16:11:28 [Jeff]
antoine: if you search Google for a book, you will get a Google Book results near the time. It has special status.
16:11:46 [antoine]
s/time/top
16:12:14 [jphipps]
off current topic...
16:12:38 [Jeff]
ACTION; Emma and Antoine to create use case DATA.SEARCH-OPTIMIZATION
16:12:39 [TomB]
thanks jon
16:13:02 [Jeff]
* Licenses, IP, DRM, other availability/rights/access restriction info [antoine, kcoyle, emmanuelle, aseiler] [MGT. LICENSES]
16:13:47 [Jeff]
michael: related to provenance and rights discovery
16:14:10 [Jeff]
antoine: need common way (RDF) to discover these things
16:14:42 [Jeff]
kcoyle: need a use case for provenance and rights
16:14:50 [Jeff]
# Workflows or roadmaps for different kinds Linked Data projects [keckert, emmanuelle] [MGT. WORKFLOWS]
16:15:08 [Jeff]
# Examples of business models of managing linked library resources (metadata, vocabulary, and KOS resources) [digikim] [MGT. BIZ-MODELS]
16:15:14 [Jeff]
# Common patterns in Linked Data, with examples, and with best practices for "Linked Data friendly" output from traditional library data - to provide guidance and save time - maybe several best practices when there are several good ways to solve a problem. [MGT. PATTERNS]
16:15:46 [Jeff]
kcoyle: 1&3 have been covered? 2 is new?
16:17:07 [Jeff]
Alexander: more concerned with common software (architecture) patterns
16:18:13 [TomB]
16:18:14 [Jeff]
Alexander: it's analogous to Java classes (built in classes)
16:18:20 [edsu]
16:18:27 [TomB]
16:19:50 [Jeff]
kcoyle: we need library examples that refer to the "free book"
16:20:33 [Jeff]
Alexander: What are the patterns that are pecularly useful in Library Linked Data?
16:20:51 [Jeff]
Emma: examples of business models. no use cases.
16:22:06 [Jeff]
marcia: Somebody needs to manage
16:22:19 [Jeff]
Karen: sustainability is essential
16:22:42 [Jeff]
kcoyle: ROI isn't necessarily money. it can also be cost savings
16:23:15 [Jeff]
antoine: abstract a business model from existing use cases?
16:23:48 [Jeff]
marcia: somebody needs to envision patterns of business models
16:24:00 [Jeff]
# Need for training and documentation (a Linked Data primer for libraries ?) [gneher, Jschneid4, keckert, digikim, antoine, emmanuelle, aseiler] [MGT. TRAINING]
16:24:10 [Jeff]
emma: a UTube video?
16:24:22 [Jeff]
emma: can we deliver training and documentation?
16:24:41 [Jeff]
antoine: our report should be readable as a primer
16:25:11 [Jeff]
kcoyle: the community needs to commit to education in this area
16:25:26 [Jeff]
TomB: do we need to specify the skillset?
16:25:47 [Jeff]
kcoyle: a lot of people as that question, but few answers
16:26:09 [Marcia]
+1 Antoine primer idea
16:26:22 [Jeff]
emma: use cases address this in problems and limitations
16:26:32 [Jeff]
# Mapping Linked Data terminology to library terminology and concepts [kcoyle] [MGT. LEGACY-MAPPING]
16:27:09 [Jeff]
antoine: can glossary make these connections
16:27:26 [Jeff]
TomB: part of training and documentation
16:27:47 [Jeff]
antoine: can this be a deliverable
16:28:08 [Jeff]
emma: just listing the terms is a hard task
16:28:15 [Jeff]
# Liaison with standardisation bodies and initiatives (ISO and national bodies, IFLA, International Council on Archives, CIDOC...) [GordonD, emmanuelle] [MGT. STANDARDS-PARTICIPATION]
16:28:31 [Jeff]
kcoyle: it's a big one
16:28:51 [Jeff]
TomB: Gordon and IFLA are a good example
16:29:20 [Jeff]
gordon: need on going organizational commitments
16:29:41 [Jeff]
TomB: we need to have ongoing communication
16:29:51 [Jeff]
# Outreach to other communities (archives, museums, publishers, the Web) [Jschneid4, GordonD, antoine] [MGT. OUTREACH]
16:30:06 [Jeff]
emma: we do have a use case related to archives
16:30:46 [Jeff]
kcoyle: these communities also have "bodies" that can become involved
16:31:19 [Jeff]
antoine: identify a list of these communities and keep it up to date
16:32:02 [Jeff]
emma: use the people in this group to create connections to there groups
16:32:50 [Jeff]
ray: "collaboration" is different from "liaison". Liaison is too hard.
16:32:56 [Jeff]
kcoyle: but necessary.
16:33:41 [Jeff]
TomB: try to disseminate our results as broadly as possible.
16:33:50 [antoine]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:33:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
antoine
16:36:54 [kcoyle]
16:37:00 [Jeff]
ACTION: on every to update this wiki page regularly
16:37:02 [paulwalk]
I have deployed an early version of my visualising app here:
Feel free to play with this - any changes you make **NOT** be persistent yet
16:37:28 [antoine]
s/this wiki page/the Events page on the wiki
16:37:39 [Jeff]
# How to announce new efforts, build appropriate communities around those efforts, get the right players to the table. [kcoyle] [MGT. NEW-EFFORTS]
16:37:48 [Jeff]
emma: it's very general
16:38:00 [michaelp]
michaelp has left #lld
16:38:15 [Jeff]
kcoyle: in the future, make sure we outreach to right people
16:38:36 [paulwalk]
Re lldvis: The vocabs are mapped to use cases, but the topics have not yet been mapped at all yet - will do this following today's meeting
16:39:11 [Jeff]
emma: group with next steps , new efforts, and future working groups.
16:39:35 [TomB]
don't we have a page for linking articles, such as my TWR blog post?
16:39:42 [Jeff]
# pulling in linked data for end users [USE.END_USERS]
16:39:47 [Jeff]
# Computational use of library linked data [USE.COMPU]
16:39:52 [Jeff]
# Linked data to enhance professional processes or workflows, for librarians, cataloguers, etc. [USE.PRO]
16:40:38 [Jeff]
emma: special effort in use cases to demonstrate these points
16:40:58 [Jeff]
emma: use cases to enhance current practices
16:41:31 [Jeff]
antoine: can we make this a deliverable?
16:41:50 [Jeff]
emma: need a specific section in the deliverable
16:42:23 [Jeff]
emma: that's the end of the list
16:43:10 [Jeff]
time for a group photo
16:47:11 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:47:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
emma
16:50:55 [jphipps]
jphipps has joined #lld
17:00:00 [emma]
ACTION: Emma and Antoine to create use case DATA.SEARCH-OPTIMIZATION
17:00:08 [emma]
rrsagent, please draft minutes
17:00:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate
emma
17:04:59 [emma]
zakim, bye
17:04:59 [Zakim]
leaving. As of this point the attendees were antoine
17:04:59 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #lld
17:05:03 [emma]
rrsagent, bye
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
I see 6 open action items saved in
:
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: GordonD and antoine to study use cases that relate to vocabulary merging use case [1]
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Tom to re-categorize AGRIS under Bibliographic Data. [2]
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jeff to review the UK eGovernment document on identifiers. [3]
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Alex, Jeff, Martin, MichaelP elaborabe on general purpose IT archtiecture for dealing with linked data with caching feature [4]
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: on every to update this wiki page regularly [5]
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Emma and Antoine to create use case DATA.SEARCH-OPTIMIZATION [6]
17:05:03 [RRSAgent]
recorded in