Status of SKOS resources (stable, testing etc)

Hi Simon,

You propose an orthogonal representation of the NSDL RegStatus proposal.
I was (like you) feeling it would be better up to the moment I saw that 
a workflow would be needed (only precise state changes would be allowed).
Then the NSDL RegStatus seemed a constrained list of possible 
combinations of the 3 dimensions you indicate.

Whatever is the representation, we need now a table of permitted status 
changes (being one or three variables) with the question asked at each step:
it may then be possible to define this to a workflow engine and have for 
"free" a terminology collaboration system!
http://java-source.net/open-source/workflow-engines
Anyone knows what is working in practice in this domain?

A simple attempt to fully modelize a workflow is below:
  (S are states, Q are questions, X are eXceptions/eXits from normal path):

S1: New-Proposed (notValid or retired or superseded if coming from S9, 
accepted,pending) [set by ANYONE]
Q1: Please Improve up to the point it makes an acceptable proposal for 
the validation committee!
        X1:Rejected (retired or superseded/notAccepted/final)
or continues to:
S2: New-Under review (notValid or retired or superseded if coming from 
S9, accepted,tentative)[set by THESAURUS MANAGER]
Q2: Does the validation committee accept this new contribution?
        X2:Rejected S9 (retired/notAccepted/final)
or continues to:
S3: Published (valid, accepted,final)[set by VALIDATION COMMITTEE]
Q3: Some problems with this? (change, deprecate?)

S4: Change-Proposed (valid,accepted,pending) [set by ANYONE]
Q4: Please Improve up to the point it makes an acceptable change for the 
validation committee!
        X6: return to S3
or continues to:
S5: Change-Under review (valid,accepted,tentative) [set by THESAURUS 
MANAGER]
Q5: Does the validation committee accept this change?
        APPLY COMMITTEE DECISION and then return to S3

S6: Deprecate-Proposed (valid,withdrawn,pending)[set by ANYONE]
Q6: Please justify up to the point it may accepted by the validation 
committee!
        X6: return to S3
or continues to:
S7: Deprecate-Under review (valid,withdrawn,tentative) [set by THESAURUS 
MANAGER]
Q7: Does the validation committee accept this deprecation?
        X7: return to S3
or continues to:
S8: Deprecated (retired or superseded, withdrawn,final)[set by 
VALIDATION COMMITTEE]
Q8: No more information linked with this?
       X8: Necessary to reactivate, ANYONE can put back in S1 ?
or continues to:
S9: Rejected (retired or superseded/notAccepted/final) [set by THESAURUS 
MANAGER, may be automated]
Q9: Do we still feel rejecting this?
       X9: Necessary to reactivate, ANYONE can put back in S1 ?

My colleagues may help me validate this and make a nice graph, it would 
really help!

Have a nice evening!

Christophe


Le 29/06/2010 17:31, Simon Cox a écrit :
> Also possibly of interest are the values in several enumeration 
> classes in ISO 19135 (Procedures for registration):
> RE_ItemStatus::
> notValid         (i.e. submitted but not yet processed)
> valid
> superseded     (i.e. no longer valid but replaced by another item in 
> the register)
> retired             (i.e. no longer valid but not replaced).
> RE_Disposition::
> withdrawn
> accepted
> notAccepted
> RE_DecisionStatus::
> pending
> tentative
> final
> As you can see, this model elaborates the status values on several axes.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> *Simon Cox
> *
> European Commission, Joint Research Centre
> Institute for Environment and Sustainability
> Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262
> Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
> Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
> Fax: +39 0332 78 6325
> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu
> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox
>
> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Any opinions expressed are personal unless otherwise indicated.
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* public-esw-thes-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Sue Ellen
>     Wright
>     *Sent:* Thursday, 24 June 2010 18:13
>     *To:* Matthias Löbe
>     *Cc:* Bernard Vatant; Alistair Miles; Dan Brickley; Marc Wick;
>     Dublin Core; SKOS; Leigh Dodds; Libby Miller; Lise Rozat
>     *Subject:* Re: Status of resources (stable, testing etc)
>
>     Dear Colleagues,
>     I am sending an HTML output from the TC 37 ISOcat Metadata
>     Registry (Data Category Registry) That shows our entry for
>     //administrative status//, which in many local termbases would
>     probably appear simply as //term status/. /We have issues within
>     the collection with distinguishing between different status
>     values, which is why the standardized data category looks a little
>     too complicated. The values are indeed the ones that Matthias has
>     identified in 10241 and they are widely used throughout TC 37
>     standards and within the terminology management community. (Bear
>     in mind we are talking discourse/text-oriented terminology here,
>     which doesn't always behave the same way that SKOS terminology
>     does, but we've got lots of cross-over points of reference.) If
>     you look at this file in a browser and move down to the value
>     domain that is shown at the end, you can link to any one of the
>     data category specifications that are referenced there. You'll
>     find that "deprecated" refers to simply any term that is not
>     considered acceptable, whether it has always been unacceptable or
>     it has been changed to that status at some time. You will note
>     that this is something of a bone of contention, because some
>     linguists don't like the term and prefer to say "not recommended"
>     in this slot. Frankly, I don't really care what label people use
>     as long as they document the mapping to the right data category
>     definition. If you really want to specify that a term was once
>     used as accepted or preferred, but it has been rejected and
>     replaced by another term, you can use "superseded". In practice,
>     most people simply use "preferred", "admitted", and "deprecated"
>     (or "not recommended" if they belong to that camp).
>     BTW, the links are mnemonic representations of non-mnemonic
>     persistent identifiers that resolve the display you will see
>     through our RESTful interface. If anybody is interested in
>     referencing concepts from TC 37, we'd love to show you how this
>     works. We're also advocates of this kind of permanent linking
>     mechanism between web resources of all kinds, although not
>     everybody has the simple solution of using a registered ISO domain
>     to back up a cool URI. Check out  ISOcat at http://www.isocat.org
>     <http://www.isocat.org/>.
>     Bye for now
>     Sue Ellen Wright, Chair, ISOcat Data Category Registry Board
>
>     2010/4/29 Matthias Löbe <matthias.loebe@imise.uni-leipzig.de
>     <mailto:matthias.loebe@imise.uni-leipzig.de>>
>
>         Hello to all,
>
>         ISO 10241 "International terminology standards" has a scale of
>         acceptability ratings comprised of: "preferred", "admitted",
>         "deprecated", "obsolete" and "superseded".
>
>         Well, I always read "deprecated" as outdated, obsolete,
>         superseded,
>         archaic, "was once approved, but should not used furthermore".
>
>         In contrast, I see cases where someone would like to express a
>         status
>         "disapproved" as "We know it might be intuitive to raise such a
>         concept and we've discussed it, but for good reason we
>         declined it and
>         won't discuss it again." (e.g. when a designation is not best
>         practice
>         in a certain context).
>
>         M
>
>         --
>         Matthias Löbe, Inst. for Medical Informatics (IMISE),
>         University of Leipzig
>         Härtelstr. 16, D-04107 Leipzig, +49 341 97 16113,
>         loebe@imise.uni-leipzig..de
>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Sue Ellen Wright
>     Institute for Applied Linguistics
>     Kent State University
>     Kent OH 44242 USA
>     sellenwright@gmail.com <mailto:sellenwright@gmail.com>
>
>     Terminology management: There is unfortunately no cure for
>     terminology; you can only hope to manage it. (Kelly Washbourne)
>