Difference between revisions of "Feb. 14, 2007"
From Metadata-Registry
(→Valentine's Day Telecon and Notes, Feb. 15, 2007 (Moved from 2/14)) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
** They're thinking of enabling some limited social tagging for their initial annotation service, so we might add something about relating tags to established vocabularies in our terminology services. | ** They're thinking of enabling some limited social tagging for their initial annotation service, so we might add something about relating tags to established vocabularies in our terminology services. | ||
* Are they looking to offload Metadata Harvesting? Or is that seen as something that must be tightly tied to the NDR? | * Are they looking to offload Metadata Harvesting? Or is that seen as something that must be tightly tied to the NDR? | ||
| + | ** She was responsive to the notion that the OAI world has not embraced the NDR APIs and that coordinating and scheduling services might be useful. Interestingly, she also mentioned that audience project that SDSC is doing, and I think we should include that as one of our Terminology Service examples. | ||
| + | * Ask what the status is with the iVia contract--is that something that NSDL would welcome having us contribute to? | ||
| + | ** Sounds like they're putting lots of pressure on Johannes, they think iVia hasn't been providing much value for the money they've spent. They're working on another contract with them and seem to want to impose numbers on them (60% is what she threw out), which is clearly unwise and probably impossible. No pathways or projects have been able to use the service, mostly, I think because they don't understand the limitations or the product. There could be some possibilities here to include something in evaluation (is this collection one that could benefit from iVia services? Or NLP?) as well as in terminology services (maybe use the FAST stuff instead of LCSH, or pull out geographics?) Mapping from their rich text might also be an option. | ||
| − | + | 3. Proposal discussions. | |
| − | + | * One thing Karen warned about is biting off more than we can chew, so we might think about focusing the proposal more, maybe leaving some things (the GEM stuff maybe?) for next year. I think we don't want them to think we've no chance of delivering. | |
| − | + | * Given Karen's reactions to the human evaluation portions, I think we should definitely beef that up a bit and talk about our ideas about moving to machine evaluation via APs. | |
| − | + | ** Organization and Narrative | |
| − | + | ** Milestones | |
| − | + | ** Budget and Overhead | |
| − | + | ** Tables and images | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | * Organization and Narrative | + | |
| − | * Milestones | + | |
| − | * Budget and Overhead | + | |
| − | * Tables and images | + | |
Revision as of 08:56, 15 February 2007
Valentine's Day Telecon and Notes, Feb. 15, 2007 (Moved from 2/14)
1. Change in telecon time to accommodate Joe.
1a. Static on the SKOS list...important?
2. Diane's discussion with Karen Henry, notes:
- What pathways are trying to gather user annotations (even for local use), does she think they'd be interested in working with us on this. [Ask Kim about this, too]
- Sounds like they still don't know what they're doing with this, going into it very slowly. I brought up the idea we'd had years ago about harvesting them, and she sounded like that was a new idea to her. I pointed out that it was important to be able to categorize them, and the Registry was the tool for that.
- How do they think Expert Voices is going? Are they getting much data? Are they still planning to use the simple model of relating the annotation data, or has something else been developed?
- They're thinking of enabling some limited social tagging for their initial annotation service, so we might add something about relating tags to established vocabularies in our terminology services.
- Are they looking to offload Metadata Harvesting? Or is that seen as something that must be tightly tied to the NDR?
- She was responsive to the notion that the OAI world has not embraced the NDR APIs and that coordinating and scheduling services might be useful. Interestingly, she also mentioned that audience project that SDSC is doing, and I think we should include that as one of our Terminology Service examples.
- Ask what the status is with the iVia contract--is that something that NSDL would welcome having us contribute to?
- Sounds like they're putting lots of pressure on Johannes, they think iVia hasn't been providing much value for the money they've spent. They're working on another contract with them and seem to want to impose numbers on them (60% is what she threw out), which is clearly unwise and probably impossible. No pathways or projects have been able to use the service, mostly, I think because they don't understand the limitations or the product. There could be some possibilities here to include something in evaluation (is this collection one that could benefit from iVia services? Or NLP?) as well as in terminology services (maybe use the FAST stuff instead of LCSH, or pull out geographics?) Mapping from their rich text might also be an option.
3. Proposal discussions.
- One thing Karen warned about is biting off more than we can chew, so we might think about focusing the proposal more, maybe leaving some things (the GEM stuff maybe?) for next year. I think we don't want them to think we've no chance of delivering.
- Given Karen's reactions to the human evaluation portions, I think we should definitely beef that up a bit and talk about our ideas about moving to machine evaluation via APs.
- Organization and Narrative
- Milestones
- Budget and Overhead
- Tables and images
