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

Thank you Chris

how can we 'allow multiple dimensions' should we
add slots/facets to the form? other suggestions?
I ll add you as form editor

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>*


On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>