Re: AW: Recommendations: URIs

On 5/3/11 4:07 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:
>
>
>> That being said, I would put in the recommendations that some libraries or library organizations should play a leading role organizing the metadata element set space. I don't think that it deviates much from the current organization, by the way--think of the Library of Congress. It's just about warning that the old roles still apply, even if the technology is changing.
>> One change may be in the way this is done, though: libraries involved in element set work should probably work in a more cross-domain environments, as modelling is more about networking: universities, W3C, publishers, DCMI and other organizations are partners that come to mind...
>
> Antoine, both of these recommendations are important, and we have them in the recommendations section only not exactly in those words. I think we should be sure, though, that this is clear.
>
> One thing we have said is that if an organization that has maintained an element set or vocabulary in the past is NOT able to translate this to LD that they should be willing to delegate that work to someone who IS able. The purpose of this is to avoid road blocks if some major organizations don't move "in good time." In a sense, this is what happened with RDA -- DCMI and the JSC collaborated and DCMI provided the technical expertise that JSC does not have. This kind of collaboration is very promising, IMO, because it ends up being a learning experience for everyone. I think we should change our text to say "delegate or join forces" -- the collaborative aspect is key to the success of the project.


Yes, that's a good point, Karen, definitely worth to be mentioned.

On "not exactly in those words", I'm not sure the point I wanted to make is entirely captured by the recommendations I can currently find, "Create URIs for library resources in good time" [1] or "Develop policies for RDF vocabulary namespaces" [2]. It is more specific to the vocabulary issue, while [1] is quite general (in fact in the light of the previous discussion I would interpreted it as focused on "dataset-resources" or "value vocabulary-resources"). And [2] seems rather technical than organization-oriented.
But perhaps it's just a matter of wording...

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page#Create_URIs_for_library_resources_in_good_time_.5BGD.5D
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_recommendations_page#Develop_policies_for_RDF_vocabulary_namespaces_.5BGD.5D

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 14:45:44 UTC