Test Agenda

Topic Area #1: Ontology (Leaders: Jason and Steven)

Intro (5 min)

Ontologies play a central role in how we model, describe, and interact with our resources as RDF. Covers ontology development, maintenance, extensions, reuse, and related questions including:

• evolution and current state of BIBFRAME

• integration or reuse of other cultural heritage ontologies and models into LOD work

• divergence from shared ontologies and how that is handled, versioned, and shared

• how libraries currently model resources and how much that should change in a new data model

LD4All Presentation (15 min)

• Review current state & scope of BIBFRAME 2 and LD4L/LD4P Extension to BIBFRAME 2: rationale for changes from BIBFRAME, executive summary of each extension area, philosophy behind changes (or questions that arose during this work)

• Process for introducing changes (versioning, ontology change, extensions, other) into BIBFRAME 2 and LD4L-Ontology

• Create familiarity with BIBFRAME 2 and its many extensions

List of participants to target for Invited Lightning Talks (45 min)

• Gordon Dunsire  - RDA :: Beacher invited

• Rob Sanderson – Getty vocabularies :: Simeon invited

• Eric Miller – BIBFRAME Lite (vendor) :: Philip invited

• Tim Cole -- W3C Annotation standard :: Philip invited

• Antoine Isaac on Europeana? PCDM? CIDOC-CRM? Others? :: Christina invited

Discussion / Collaboration (45 min)

Discussion Points / Questions

1. Implications of having multiple ontologies in library world.

1. what does this mean for data capture? sharing? discovery? maintenance? tools?

2. where are ontologies and vocabularies hosted? how does this require trust networks for updates (also touched on in governance)?

3. who can conduct maintenance on a shared community-driven ontology? what does that maintenance need to entail?  

2. Building links between BIBFRAME 2 & the rest of the LOD world

1. discussion on BF relative to other domains (ontology development in Europe and North America; adoption of ontologies by vendors and open source software developers; etc.)

2. BF interactions with extensions - what are these extensions? how they are developed? how they are managed?

3. Input on managing change (via updates and/or schema evolution)

Format

• Each table becomes a group that will review all 3 points above, 15 minutes per point.

• Members of the LD4All Ontology group mingle to help represent LD4All members at each table.

Report Back (25 min)

Session leader facilitates report-back from breakout groups; entire group discusses additional questions / issues not yet covered.

Topic Area #2: Workflows, Procedures & Production (Leaders: Philip and Josh)

Intro (5 min)

A primary workflow area for many LD4P efforts is Library Technical Services, where metadata production is already affected by current and proposed changes. LOD shifts in workflow will also impact other areas like digital repositories and discovery environments. Focus on what LOD means for our existing procedures, and what libraries and other cultural heritage institutions need to do when moving LOD into production.

LD4All Presentation (15 min)

A closer dive into the gathered functional requirements would be really interesting, reviewing how they were captured, assessed, prioritized, and what they offer for moving to LOD.

List of participants to target for Invited Lightning Talks (45 min)

• Osma Suominen

• BIBFLOW representative

• Sirsi - Something on workflow (vendor)

• UCSD Folks (on non-MARC workflows in LOD especially)

• Karen Coyle on Why we model (links UX needs to modeling)

• John Ockerbloom (on cataloger use of authorities tooling?)

• Jackie Shieh (on how identifiers are captured in her work)--may ask her to present on Community topic, should coordinate

• Julie Hardesty on Hydra-focused workflows using RDF (Avalon usage?)

Discussion / Collaboration (45 min)

Discussion Points / Questions

• What does cooperative cataloging look like in Linked Data world - from a workflow perspective (technology and infrastructure is later)

• What is service-level access to data in these workflows:

• As consumers, how we want others to publish data, provide service level access?

• As publishers, how do our consumers want us to publish our data, provide service level access?

• Is this an opportunity to merge MARC and non-MARC workflows in some areas? Or does it increase the gap? And what should we watch out for?

• What interfaces do these workflows expect? Editor, integration dashboard interfaces, etc.

• How will we manage metadata and resources captured in multiple places (some LOD, some not) for different purposes - acquisitions as opposed to discovery as opposed to other areas of work?

• Are there efficiencies or enhancements to be gained in moving our workflows to LOD? What are the easiest to implement, which are the trickiest?

Format: Group Breakout

• Have a different question from above handed out to each table/group as best fits the people at that table or group.

• Each group discusses how to answer their specific question and generate a list of steps to approach implementation of their answers. LD4All representative at each table helps guide the discussion.

Report Back (25 min)

Topic Area #3: Tooling and Services (infrastructure) (Leaders: Simeon and Tom) (2h15, split with break after 1:05h)

Intro (5 min)

Here’s a map / diagram of how all the tools fit together/are a continuous workflow. Look at all the gaps! We think tools should mix and match, current landscape has various explorations of entire vertical. Let’s use this group to output a list of tool gaps, ranked by urgency. Also let’s identify where there are already good tools, to consolidate on them. (Simeon)

LD4All Presentation given as Lightning Talks (30 min -- 5 mins each)

LD4L-Labs and LD4P work

• Registry of tools on the LD4P wiki & creating a better community knowledge base / sandbox for these (Tom)

• LD4L Labs Converter (Rebecca)

• Testing Suite & Validation Work (Josh)

• LC BIBFRAME Editor and Converter (Nate Trail)

• VitroLib Editor (Huda)

• Reconciliation & Visualization efforts (Dave)

Participant Invited Lightning Talks (30 min -- up to 6 at 5 mins each)

• Matt Miller on NYPL or Linked Jazz developments (no proposal 2017-03-14)

• Ex Libris (Shlomo) - A Vendor’s perspective (vendor, proposal looks fine)

• IndexData (Sebastian Hammer) - BIBFRAME in FOLIO (vendor, proposal looks fine)

• Niklas Lindström on LIBRIS LOD development at National Library of Sweden (invite if no proposal, no proposal 2017-03-14)

• Casalini -- SHARE et al. (vendor, no proposal 2017-03-14)

• CEDAR -- non-CHO tool (Tom/Michelle to invite, proposal 2017-03-14)

• other Non-LD4L-Labs tools we are experimenting with?

Discussion / Collaboration (6 min setup & dispersal, 12 mins x 4 topics = 6+48mins = 54mins)

Format: 4 concurrent discussions with 4 standing groups; each group discusses the 4 questions in different order. 4 facilitators rotate among the 4 groups. (facilitators: Randy, Jason, Christina, Amber)

Discussion Points / Questions

• What is current best in class for tools that meet needs? (And why aren’t we all just using them?)

• What are the biggest and most pressing gaps?

• How can we organize ourselves to get better and more tools? Are some things better provided as (hosted) services rather than (local) instances of tools?

• What tools & services for LD can we use that don’t come from CHO?

Companion Artifacts or Resources

• reference map of tools and workflows

• registry of tools

Report Back (16 min)

Each of 4 facilitators reports out in 4 minutes (lunch provides motivation for brevity)

Topic Area #4: Community Adoption, Governance & Engagement (Leaders: Dean and Michelle)

Intro (5 min)

Widespread adoption of linked data requires ontologies, procedures, tooling, mutual agreements, and professional development, all of which raise the question of community engagement and governance. How can LOD practitioners in our community handle governance of emerging outputs that require further community review, vetting, and uptake to be meaningful? What organizations and collaborations can make adoption and engagement possible, and can help manage shifts in models, technologies, and institutional interactions?

Governance: ontologies? communities? tools? infrastructure? best practices for governance. Who governs what? Best practices for ontology governance / community development

LD4All Presentation (10 min)

• Do we have enough to talk about? getting close to transition point where we’re ready for input on tools--are we envisioning creating a community around tools? Call out the lack of community around tooling. What other tooling should be included?

• What expectations of community governance were surfaced in LD4All? What are next steps toward community governance?

• How does LD4All grow beyond current partners?

• Ontology: not successful unless people adopt

• Communities we’ve tried to engage with, areas where questions came up

• Overlap or existing collaborations between LD4L and PCC

• LC/BIBFRAME plans for namespace, extensions, community input? too narrow a focus for this meeting?

• Commercial partner engagement. Casalini, ExLibris, Sirsi, IndexData. How do you reach threshold of customers willing to commit? Vendor-friendly, vendor-neutral.

List of participants to target for Invited Lightning Talks (45 min)

• Ask Scandinavian participant to talk about their community, ideas about creating tools, standards

• Tom Baker from DCMI on their governance efforts :: invited by Christina, Ray also knows him

• OCLC  - Something on adoption (vendor) :: Mary Sauer Ganes is coming, invited by Philip

• Dan Brickley or other from Schema.org re maintenance, governance, adoption of schema.org, with an eye to what we can learn for BIBFRAME and its extensions. :: Dan invited by Steven, Ray also knows him. Dan is still a “maybe”

• Antoine Isaac on Community Involvement & Engagement in Europeana efforts :: Christina invited, Ray also knows him, also listed as potential lightning talk in Ontology session

• W3C? (Tim Cole already invited to speak about ontologies)

• Someone from PCC on what they see their role as in a LOD environment: Jackie Shieh is heading PCC URI group, could talk about efforts to make use of URIs mainstream

• LC to explain how they see engaging community with BIBFRAME: Beacher

• Vendor Panel? 10-15 minutes? Not a vendor presentation, just prepared questions asked by facilitator? How do vendors see themselves engaging with the community? Plenary facilitated discussion with facilitator to engage people.

Discussion / Collaboration (50 min)

Discussion Points / Questions

• Who manages our data, URIs, resources, specifications, tools, other? What does this mean for community updates and development - whether talking about ontologies or tools?

• The specific question of Ontology Hosting has come up multiple times.

• Place(s) to support open source software for LOD tooling?

• How does this interact with enterprise / vendor tools and products?

• How do existing bodies fit into this work? What additional collaborations should LD4P/LD4L-Labs/library community pursue? (PCC, DCMI, W3C, Hydra/Duraspace, ISNI…)

• Building out professional development and expertise in ontology development & Linked Open Data Fundamentals in our communities:

• How and where do we support this professional development?

• Professional development “on the fly”:  lessons learned, challenges to be solved

• Business case for linked data has not been made, what data do we need to make it?

Format: Group Breakout? (Questions have to be well designed) Plenary?

Report Back (25 min)

Next Steps: (Leaders: Phil & Tom)

Proposed agenda (1 hour session):

Break into 4 x 10 min sessions to discuss forward-looking questions from the perspective of each of the 4 different topic areas:

1.) ontology development and governance,

2.) tools & services,

3.) community capacity building,

4.) workflows

Other questions to stimulate discussion:

Questions for discussion:

--what will it take to hit a tipping point for linked data in libraries?

--what does the ideal future look like in each of the four areas?

--what is the most valuable thing LD4L-Labs and LD4P can produce in each of the four areas?