Re: Vocabulary process kick-start

Dear Morten,
	the idea is exactly of defining a process altogether and then accept  
requests from everyone who is interested. You and your company are  
very welcome to join the discussion here on the public list and later  
when we will be working to define the vocabulary.

Just remember that this group will define a "Core" vocabulary for  
adaptation for mobile browsers, so we have a restricted field of action.
Once the vocabulary has been defined, no one stops you from extending  
it with additional entries.

In my mind, the process that will be used in this group might also  
serve as an example for other companies like yours who might be  
willing to extend it or maintain different sets of Vocabulary entries.

- Andrea


Il giorno 26/feb/07, alle ore 12:42, Morten Olsen ha scritto:

>
> Hi,
>
> Working at a company that build systems for portals and different  
> services for mobile devices, I'm interested in knowing if you will  
> consider vocabulary requests from everyone? Or what "internal and  
> external groups" you are considering to collect requests from?
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
> Morten Olsen
>
> Direct          +45 3377 0118
> Mobile        +45 5122 5049
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg- 
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> Sent: 26. februar 2007 12:10
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: Vocabulary process kick-start
>
>
> I would like to start the discussion about the process to define the
> Core Vocabulary entries for the DDR.
>
> Let's start with a little background and explanation of why we need a
> process.
> This group is going to produce a group Note with a vocabulary that
> should describe the core features and behaviours of mobile user-
> agents to allow a developer to produce a good presentation for the
> mobile.
> The group has, in the past charter, ran a small survey among the
> members and identified a short list of device and user-agent features
> that are interesting to many site owners [1].
>
> In this charter we have agreed to make 2 important steps, define a
> process to be used to create vocabulary entries and then collect the
> requests from internal and external groups and define the core
> vocabulary.
>
> Step 1 is very important, in my opinion, because it also defines how
> the entries of the vocabulary will be collected, evaluated and
> eventually added (or not) to the vocabulary. In my mind, the process
> that this group will define, will also serve as a basis for the work
> that will be done by the maintainer of the vocabulary once the
> charter of this group will be over.
> Step 2 is very important too, as is what will determine the success
> or not of this working group. It relies a lot on the quality of the
> process that we will define, but will also be the result of the work
> of all the people involved in this group and every external company
> or entity that is interested in participating in our activity. It is
> not hard to list all the things we would like to see in the
> vocabulary, but it will be very hard to actually restrict all that
> information to something that is considered "core" and that makes
> everyone happy with.
>
> We can't start defining the entries of the vocabulary until we have
> defined how we will collect and evaluate the requests. First things
> first, then.
>
> The process should be formal enough to make sure that requests are
> meaningful and that can be converted into vocabulary entries, but it
> should also be lightweight as this group is not a company with 10
> employees working on the vocabulary fulltime and because we do not
> want it to be too complicated to discourage requests.
>
> For the above reasons, my initial proposal is as follows:
> a) provide a common method for people to request a vocabulary entry.
> This should be as simple as a web form.
> a.1) the request should provide at minimum the description of what
> entry is being requested, what is the entry needed for and maybe a
> suggested name.
> a.2) the request may include the ontology definition (using Protégé)
> b) the group will receive the request, evaluate it, discuss it
> b.1) the group may contact the individual or company that requested
> the entry for more explanations
> c) the group will consider if the entry should be created
> d) the group will, if not provided, create a new entry in the
> vocabulary using a tool such as Protégé to edit the ontology OR edit
> or approve the one provided by the requesting entity
> e) the group will add the entry to the Core Vocabulary
>
> At bullet d what happens is simply the creation of the entry using a
> tool such as Protégé. This will provide the strong data typing that
> is required for this vocabulary and will also provide the ease of a
> visual tool to produce the human-unreadable, but machine-friendly RDF
> ontology definition of the entry.
>
> In my mind the group will receive a lot of requests during this
> group's life. There should be a period, around the end of life of
> this group in which the group might review the entire vocabulary and
> drop entries that are not considered core, too similar to others or
> try to merge, group or review entries requested in the past.
>
> Once all this is done, using Protégé anyone will be able to download
> the full vocabulary, browse it, check it and fit it into his database
> or application and use a DDR that will be defined in the other group
> Note and Recommendations.
>
> I would like to remind that this is a first description of how the
> process might work. The group would like to hear comments and
> suggestions about the process.
>
>
> Andrea Trasatti
> Blog: http://trasatti.blogspot.com/
> W3C invited expert
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabulary
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 23:14:44 UTC