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

Thanks Chris
perhaps, just for neatness, better create additional slots for
def2 and def 3. It's free and will create a less messy datasheet
 I have done so, please feel free to hack/test
if the forms work or flag/note down issues/suggested edits.
we can work on a ongoing improvement basis, and produce
a better form in v2

I have corrected yo

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 2:46 PM, Chris Harding <chris@lacibus.net> wrote:

> Hi, Paola -
>
> I assume that we can create two definitions for the same term simply by
> filling in two instances of the entry form, with the same term on both
> instances, and that the system will then put a line into the spreadsheet
> for each instance. Hopefully (I don't know Google spreadsheets well, but
> would expect this feature) we can then sort the spreadsheet by Column B
> (Single Term or Phrase) so that the lines appear consecutively.
>
> Thanks for adding me as an editor. Is there a URL for me to edit the form
> to fix the typo? I couldn't find an edit link or button on the form itself.
>
>
> Paola Di Maio wrote:
>
> 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/kn
>> owledge-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
>>
>>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Chris
> ++++
>
> Chief Executive, Lacibus <https://lacibus.net> Ltd
> chris@lacibus.net
>
>