- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:10:36 +0100
- To: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
- Cc: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>, SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
>>I provide such rewording in-line below. (My rewording is perhaps >>excessively weasely) > > > This would also be fine with me -- your proposed wordings are > in fact very similar in tone to what I had written in the first > place (i.e., I intended the lists as rough examples to indicate > the scope I was picturing). As always, though, I made a final > pass to "omit needless words" (Strunk and White 1938, p.1)... I think you omitted one or two too many, I have certainly put back in excess! There is a happy balance somewhere - my preference remains to move the lists out of the TF desc. > > >> (To indicate a substantive >>issue, I am not clear I agree with the proposed approach to namespace >>ownership, cf Patel-Schneider and Parsia's work on social meaning, >>presented as a poster at WWW2004) > > > Hmm, if you mean the notion of Namespace Owner, this is > something I find in the Proposed TAG Finding on Versioning > XML Languages [1], Section 7.2: "Only Namespace Owners Change > Namespace" (capitalized in the original). I am new to W3C > process so would like to clarify the extent to which we need > to ensure that a SWBPD note is consistent with other W3C work > (such as TAG Findings). > I had missed that, there is also a mailing list public-sw-meaning@w3.org http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2004Jun/ which addresses some of these issues. > In fact, if we could clarify that question, we could then > tighten up the current section on "Dependencies" (below), which > is really a growing bibliography more than a Dependency section > in the stricter sense. Calling it a 'bibliography' in the TF desc may be clearer. > > Tom > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning/ There is a bug with the ACLs you have to use: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning Hmmm, the status indicates that this is not yet a consensus document - this issue is, in my experience, a minefield. What we did in RDF Core with related issues on social meaning was put up a document which had WG consensus [1], that got trashed in public review [2], and we withdrew the section that did not have consensus. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-Meaning [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0366 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0486 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning Comment 0486 was accepted by the WG I am a little concerned that some of the scope of this TF risks similar trashing, and wonder whether the deliverables can be staggered with less contentious ones first. Jeremy > > >>>DEPENDENCIES (in the broadest sense) >>> -- THES - SWBP Thesaurus Task Force >>> http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission >>> -- FOAF >>> http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/foaf-galway/ >>> -- Dublin Core - DCMI, for example: >>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/ >>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ >>> -- Dublin Core - CEN MMI-DC Working Group >>> http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/Versioning-20040611.txt >>> http://www.cenorm.be/isss/cwa14855/ >>> -- Proposed TAG Finding on Versioning XML Languages >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning/ >>> -- SKOS - SWAD Europe >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/ >>> http://www.w3.org/2004/skos/core.rdf >>> http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/2003/11/21-skos-mapping >>> -- W3C TAG on "What should a 'namespace document' look like? >>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8 >>> -- SWAD-E Thesaurus (wants "standard" thesaurus change management >>> guidelines) >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Apr/ >>> -- Image Annotation meeting in Madrid >>> http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2004/06/07/2004-06-07.html#1086615887.400193 >>> -- Tim Berners-Lee on Evolvability >>> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html >>> -- OASIS Published Subjects Technical Committee >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tm-pubsubj >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm >>> -- OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content (Carl Mattocks) >>> -- Libby and Dan work on RDF query >>> http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2001/06/process/ >>> -- Sandro's work on a vocabulary directory (reference needed) >>> -- Alan: experience in medical contexts with large vocabularies >>> -- Alistair: recommendations for change management >>> -- CORES Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers >>> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july03/baker/07baker.html > >
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 13:11:18 UTC