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

Hi, Paola -

Thanks! The process and forms look fine to me. (Apart from a minor typo, 
"Yo name", on the Vocabulary form.)

I recommend allowing multiple definitions for a term, provided each of 
them states the context in which it applies.

Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
> 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>*
>

-- 
Regards

Chris
++++

Chief Executive, Lacibus <https://lacibus.net> Ltd
chris@lacibus.net