Re: Proposal for a domain

Dear Gav

thanks for extensive resources to kickstart.

I think another option, rather than 'taking over' your existing collection,
to analyse the terms one by one, or ten by ten, say, and see if we want to
use them as they are given
or amend them for adoption in this group

The purpose of this evaluation is to allow a wider community, with different
perspectives to
make a contribution to the terminology, and helps us evolve, and refine the
vocabulary
if necessary

Secondly, it would help us make decisions regard the copyright, as you say
there might be problems there - only if we decide to adopt that given term
precisely as it is given, we need to worry about permission - if we come up
with our own concoction, I dont think we need to worry although we may want
to make our references public

so, the way I see it

1. we need to take into account as much existing work as possible, so
thatnks for starting this literature review resource. brilliant

2. we need to review terms one by one, and adopt them as proposed by
existing resources, or amend them for w3 adoption

3. if we decide to keep the terms as they are, we need to
  a) invoke 'fair use', where possible, to make our adoption legitimate, or
  b) request explicit permission , which in my experience most organisations
are happy to grant

if we agree roughly with this process, we could selecting the first batch
would that be an alphabetical exercise, or a logical/semantic exercise?

let us know when we are ready everybody?

cheers
PDM

On 6/19/07, Gavin Treadgold <gt@kestrel.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> H
> GAVIN WIKI
>
> <http://www.plan.net.nz/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>
> <http://www.plan.net.nz/wiki/index.php/Category:Terms>
>
> <http://www.plan.net.nz/wiki/index.php/Category:Disaster>
>
> There is also a simple structure in place to identify the types of
> source documents.
> <http://www.plan.net.nz/wiki/index.php/Category:Legislation>
>
> One concern I have is that many definitions will be contained in
> copyrighted documents and we may need to obtain permission to
> aggregate and re-use their work. I'm thinking particularly of the
> likes of existing standards organisations such as the US National
> Fire Protection Association that manages NFPA1600:2007 - Standard on
> Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs.
>
> <http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/CodesStandards/1600-2007.pdf>
>
> How does the W3C process support the use of definitions that fall
> under copyright. Copying a few terms may be OK, but I imagine that
> some standards organisations may balk if a whole glossary from a
> standard they manage is copied.
>
> This is important as many of the domain users rely on definitions in
> these documents, which means that the XG must factor these
> definitions into our work.
>
> > 2.  I am researching 'event classification' principles and have
> > elicited some comments from experts that I am posting on the wiki soon
>
> And we will have to be careful that event classification principles
> are not seen to override any legislative definitions that countries
> may have in relation to legal definitions of emergency and disaster
> and the variance that we will see from country to country.
>