2019-03-22 - Per Tuesday meeting most SHARE-VDE issues resolved for now, Dave is hoping to have progress with LCNAF and LCGFT by next Tuesday
Steven Folsom to reach out to Nancy to see what data we get from the "Profiles Wrangler" survey about QA needs, will then reach out to cohort to check results and see if anything is missing
2019-03-08 - Received a confirmation from Nancy that they are happy to share. The survey closes 2019-03-08.
2019-03-15 - Paloma mentioned before the survey closed that https://www.rbms.info/vocabularies/ and http://www.ligatus.org.uk/lob/ were named. Waiting for a complete list. The former, I (Steven) don't believe, is LOD; we'll have to confirm and come up with a plan.
List of datasets named in the Profile Wrangler Survey:
RBMS (No RDF yet, but the editorial group is working towards it)
Steven will make sure there is a github issue for each vocabulary and try to find an owner for each. We will need to find out whether there are URIs for these terms – might not be able to support all
Jason Kovari will check with Tim Thompson whether it is OK to use the same transformation of RBMS vocabs that was used in LD4L-Labs
E. Lynette Rayle LDPath gem has two problems: 1) bug in LDPath parsing paths, 2) it is doing load for graph every time it tries to access something (SLOW)... may need to fork LDPath gem to make more efficient since will not need to reload graph every time (for our use case)
2019-03-15 - Tracking in Issue #56, have not yet put example in LDPath repo for Chris
2019-03-22 - Still working on example for LDPath issue. Will hope to speak with Chris at LDCX
E. Lynette Rayle investigate & document algorithm for selection of languages with label and/or no label. In cases like AgroVoc where languages are handled well then we just want to document the (good) algorithm; but in other cases where language information is wrong we need to be able to turn that off (need more config for this)
2019-03-08 - very nearly done... will be in QA release, hopefully today. Config will have wildcard for "all-languages" which will then not select data for just a single language
2019-03-22 - Documentation has been started but still has some TODOs to fill in information. Created issue to track (Issue #61)
2019-02-22 Discussion of whether we are doing anything that will impact our source (MARC) data or whether this work is just additions at the discovery layer (that may come from other sources such as SHARE-VDE clusters) – agreement that we are interested in experiments that will merge any useful data at the indexing stage. If we wanted to move any of this to production then we'd need to have conversations about linking in MARC but that could be done later / if / when. Huda Khanand Steven Folsomwill meet next week to come up with proposals with an assessment of tractability and wow factor.
2019-03-01 Met yesterday and assessed "wow" in spreadsheet, suggested that three: relationships, knowledge cards and semantic navigation have the best potential for "wow". Huda Khanand Steven Folsom to come up with wireframe proposals to present to D&A group on March 19.
Based on D.O.G. and D.A.G. work, generated set of ideas (to elicit feedback). Based on bringing in relationships from external data (that hopefully go beyond what is already in the authorities). Areas to try: cross-references, relationships, other sources (e.g. databases, etc.).
Jason Kovariwill discuss in LTS whether there a URIs from Share-VDE data that are useful and might be added to catalog
2019-02-22 – 2019-03-22 ON HOLD until we have the good (with clusters) Cornell data back from Casalini (not sure when expected). Then have discussion in LTS – people will need to see / explore data before forming opinions on utility
Simeon – I think we need a set of real user discovery stories to use as examples when we talk about discovery. As I hear, "my current example is Lincoln" it all sounds so arbitrary. I think we should be saying "Let's take the example of an undergraduate student searching for "lincoln" in order to find material for an American History 101 assignment on this and that (this example came from a user study we did in Cornell's Olin library...)" even if the actual terms and results are the same.
Michelle (2019-03-21, email): "June in-person partner meeting in DC: planning hasn't started yet, it would be good to have at least one person from each of Cornell/Harvard/Iowa SLIS/LC/PCC/Stanford involved in the planning. Let me know if you want to take part."