Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

CLDI IT WG Conference Call

July 11, 2018

3pm EDT / noon PDT

Note takers: Dan Scott


Hangouts Link:


Jenn's version:

Dan: In German - TIB group at Hanover working on Open Research Knowledge Graph

Karim: learned about it at Access

heard it was gather data sets and do interesting stuff

it was shocking to him, had hoped to approach it differently

3 parts: describing, indexing, searching. latter is his interest

to make it open, free, description isn’t the value, the searching is - that’s what’s going to compete w commercial interests

entry level to understand this tech is high



there’s a lot ahead of us in valuable learning

he’s frustrated he hasn’t been able to put more time/thought into the group

tech experimentation has been valuable

hasn’t been able to devote enough time/focus to group approach

needs to be a substantial group project, more thought out in the future. with mutual support



echo peter

feels like canada still further behind

need potential projects to rally around, and have the home inst provide the support/time needed

put what we’ve learned into practice



echo peter/dan too

have cordoned off into expertise groups, too isolated

it’s not how libraries do/should work

need project management/oversight to do concrete projects

even if it’s just alpha/beta

not a lot to show for time invested

he’s been getting involved w IIIF

complementary tech; should bring in



need almost tangible, project that can be done

and a mandate to get it done and mandate from inst

cross functionality is key

have been too siloed



likes potential iiif involvement

include wikidata/wikicite


can we be cross functional and still learn the tech?



make it a “purposeful” gathering

are we about learning/pd?

he never found a purpose statement for the group

what can we contribute from the *Canadian* context?

institutional backing key



have done learning in 2 years

now need metamorphosis to producing

will need cross functional to do that

wants to learn while producing



very difficult to learn w/o concrete thing to work with

successful projects have people learn as they go

notes it wg only mentioned once in the strategic docs from last year


who has ongoing LD discussion locally?

alberta, just discussion

mcgill is inconsistent

UT does


how do we collaborate rather than compete?



cross inst is good, need to keep that

he’s been working w stacy across institutions

but as a research activity



cross institutional adds credibility

beyond a research project

easier to ask his dean for support to join CLDI, rather than “linked data”



what value does cldi bring to canada beyond cross institutional collaboration?

dan: hard to point to anything concrete, but lots of potential. can get canadian cultural heritage front and centre (both content and knowledge infrastructure)

dan: stretch goal - offer 3 day intensive  LD in canada?

bilal: connection w software carpentry?


mode and intensity of communication?


paul: pick a project, assign some roles to do a proof of concept. make meeting schedule/medium to match. might need e.g. slack

picking project isn’t easy due to diverse skillets/interests

have it wg propose project ideas, document requirements, who we need to bring in (metadata, usability). focus on scope/timeline/delilverables


peter: reiterates desire to focus around a project, increase rate of communication

distinguish from project team somehow, so needs to keep the tech focus front and centre

would love iiif to be a component (paul +1)


my thoughts:

cldi as “collaborative project incubator”?

Bilal's version:


- wants focus on searching (apart from description and indexing)
- how can we get there, away from 'gatekeepers' and private institutions
- worked with oclc and other datasets to show value of open tech to library content

- lots of learning ahead
- frustration due to lack of time; find focus
- enjoyed what's happened so far (e.g. setting up triple store)
- haven't been able to come up with a group project
- come up with something more substantial/thought-out, with more mutual support

- Ed Sommers - LC Subject Heading 2008
- Canada should be ahead of where we are with this
- Rally around projects like TRC
- Need institutional support
- Do we need cross-functional groups to get tangential output for Canadian needs?
-- functional structure not as conducive to that
-- "real" output

- Functional "bird of a feather" approach perhaps not as useful
- Cross-functional groups -> deliverable -> alpha output
- Not a lot to show in 2+ years
- IIIF: worth bringing into this conversation?
-- agreement from Peter

- Need more tangibility
- Need backing
- Cross-functionality
- Silo-ing has head to individual focus, but not a wholistic view of things

- re: IIIF - let's not ignore other initiatives such as Wiki*, and determine points of intersection where Canadian institutions can contribute

- Can we be a cross-functional team and work on a project with tangible outcomes, while learning (from an early stage) at the same time?

- What is the purpose of this group?
- Like the idea of Canadian context, to be applied in the Linked Data world
- Re: institutional backing: willing to making the ask if we can prove value

- We're at a stage where we need to change into something that produces outputs
- May be natural in the evolution of CLDI
- Learn and produce at the same time

- Very difficult to learn without concrete deliverables/defined outcomes

- How do we ensure the skillset exists to fill a proper cross-functional team?

- Important to balance between institutional backing and cross-institutional competition
- e.g. project with Stacy Allison-Cassin at York

- Cross-institutional activities (via CLDI) may lead to easier institutional backing

- Apart from cross-institutional collaboration, what other value does CLDI bring to the table?

- Nothing tangential to show yet, but there is potential

- What about our mode/frequency of meeting?

- Could be dictated by potential project plan
- Can we determine a project we can collaborate on collectively
-- not easy, but might be worth figuring out
-- carry out whole project planning exercise, including cross-functional team members, scope, timing etc

- project focus could lead to change in frequency of meeting

- IIIF-based project would align well with other priorities

  • No labels