Re: [VM] [rdfweb-dev] proposals for enhancing the descriptions of foaf terms

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:55:39PM +0200, Thomas Baker wrote:
> > Tom, could you comment from a DC perspective. How are the DC Usage Board 
> > decisions represented? Any conventions we could share?

Sorry, I forgot to summarize: A decision that results in
any change to a term description triggers the creation of
a new term description.  Term Descriptions (identified by
URIref) are associated with a Term (identified by URIref)
and with other Term Descriptions, prior or successive.
The decision itself has a date of issue, is identified by
URIref, and is associated with a decision text and any other
supporting documentation.  This means you can start with any
term Description and click back to the decision associated
with its issuance and, from there, to the decision texts and
proposals underlying the decisions.

The URIrefs for Term Descriptions are not widely
publicized as they are used very specifically for
managing the historical evolution of the vocabulary or
(in principle) for specifying the source of translations
of labels and definitions into other languages (e.g.,
the Japanese translation of dc:title isTranslationOf

The URIrefs for Term Descriptions were born, in effect, as
anchors to points in an HTML document.  Before making this
approach official, we want to pause to reflect whether this
is wise.


Dr. Thomas Baker              
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email:

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 13:03:30 UTC