Re: Review of LLD vocabularies and datasets

Hi Marcia, Antoine &co

> 2. I felt that there are several issues around the naming of the deliverable, as well as the categorization of the items listed.  In general the contents included is not the main issue, am I right?

Bernard and I both separately commented on this so I think it deserves some thought.  From my perspective it is more about tidying up the naming and ordering so that people know what to expect: three things in the title, three things in the definitions, three subsections, all in the same order (it feels more natural unless there is good reason not to do it that way).
> 
> 4. Also, for the name of 'metadata element sets', should we supply other synonyms such as 'vocabularies for data structures/properties' -- or other terms?  I.E., line up the synonyms together?  For different communities, their familiar terminology might be different from others.  
> In the LOD-LAM Summit I found that the 'vocabularies' mean mostly RDF vocabularies (DCT, SKOS, FOAF…) by those who are active in DCMI community.  But for the museum and archives people, they kept thinking about controlled vocabularies.  

Yes I think a side-note, or footnote or similar saying 'these are otherwise more commonly known by other names in various communities e.g. xxx in yyyy community", (something like that).

Monica