pls review and evaluate process and forms for submitting vocabs and resources

Thank you Milton for getting us started on our
two base terms AI and KR

Before proceeding with that
Please review and evaluate the forms and proposed process

Here is a form where to populate a list of resources
https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/welcome/ai-kr-task-list/knowledge-sources-for-ai-kr/
*Note: the category 'vocabulary'  among others*
*This refers to terms and definitions which exist already on the web (at
least that's the way I figure it)*

specific vocabulary entries in this form
https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/welcome/ai-kr-task-list/vocabulary/
(I have added a field in the Vocab form
where to enter the  'permanent' url for the term and edited other fiels)
*Note: this is our own CG vocabulary/output that considers  and references
the terms  already existing elsewhere and refines them into a new, broader
vocab*

(assuming the vocab /terms can exist/live on our home page for the moment-
maybe get a purl later on? is purl still a term of reference these days? I
asked DMOZ access but did not receive any acknowledgement, is anyoNe
working on DMOZ?)

1. The suggested process is: every member should please
enter some terms and resources during the summer based on their interest
and expertise

2. To achieve consensus where needed Invite comments from others via ping
on the list (comments from others can be annotated directly in the form
spreadsheet?
 https://tinyurl.com/yaqclt89)

3. at some point in the autumn, we can have a review of terms and comments
entered and make some final decisions as to the terms and their
representation we want to include in our vocab

4. when we are satisfied we can open the consultation to others, then
freeze  what we have until further review

THOUGHTS
- are these forms I created adequate ? do we need to add/change/improve
anything?
- is the process outlined above sufficient to get us started and produce
something we can start working with?
please help to improve it/refine it
-  Milton's suggestion  which I agree to - is that the definitions we aim
form should the broadest possible
But, are we going to lose 'precision'?
should we have multiple definitions in case we cannot satisfy both breadth
and precision with one term?
(I have entered a field for multiple definitions of each propsed term)

is this clear?
does this make sense?
is there anything else we should be doing to get us started?

Thanks
PDM









Dr Paola Di Maio
Center For Technology Ethics

ISTCS.org
Chair: W3C AIKR  <https://www.w3.org/community/aikr/>


*A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio>*