W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [ALL] More TF topics...?

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 20:44:39 +0200
Message-ID: <40705797.7060707@cs.vu.nl>
To: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Thomas Baker wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I just joined the group two days ago and am unsure whether
> additional topics for TFs can still be considered.  

Definitely. We will revise and reprioritize our TF list regurlarly.
I'll make sure it's on the agenda next time.

Guus

> 
> As head of the DCMI Usage Board, I am most interested
> in plain-vanilla issues around managing and using small
> vocabularies:
> 
> 1) Policies for URIs as term identifiers: DCMI has a formal
>    "namespace policy" [1] and participated in "first-step"
>    agreement with maintainers of other key standards regarding
>    such policies [2].  Some issues include: expectations from
>    namespace policies generally (clarification of persistence,
>    institutional commitment, etc); versioning of terms; version
>    numbers in URI strings; granularity of entities identified;
>    "# versus /"; and the like.  Would BPD want to formulate
>    guidelines in this area?
> 
> 2) Versioning terms and term sets: DCMI has a de-facto method
>    for versioning terms, though it is not yet formally
>    supported by DCMI policy.  (It is an event-based model which
>    uses URIs to link changes in Term Versions to Decisions,
>    which in turn are linked to supporting documentation.)
>    Is the model good; what other methods are there; and could
>    we provide guidance?
> 
> 3) Assertion etiquette and "good neighbor" policies: DCMI is
>    working with Library of Congress on developing an RDF
>    schema in which LC asserts a set of MARC Relator terms
>    to be subPropertyOf dc:contributor.  DCMI wants to then
>    endorse these assertions.  Would BPD WG want to formulate or
>    endorse good-practice guidelines for making such assertions?
> 
> 4) Vocabulary documentation (see also Dan [3]): DCMI looks
>    to the SW community for guidance on what to publish at
>    its namespace URIs (it currently publishes RDF schemas).
>    In terms of work flow, DCMI generates the RDF schemas along
>    with ready-reference Web pages from a common source using
>    XSLT scripts, though surely more sophisticated editing
>    and validation environments are available.
> 
> 5) Declaring versus reusing (see also Libby [4]): "Should I
>    use an existing term, get DCMI to declare one, or declare
>    my own?  How can I coin a URI?  Where would I put it?"
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
> [2] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july03/baker/07baker.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0016.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0017.html
> 
> 

-- 
Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2004 14:45:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC