On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:59:29PM -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > I interpreted this question differently to the answers I have seen so far... > > I thought it was concentrating on processes where the development of the > schema happened over time, as an inclusive process based on usage, rather > than being "handed down from on high by experts". > > I think there are a number of well-known projects that do this. FOAF tends to > emerge from teh user community and discussions held in a well-known forum. > > Dublin Core similarly has a process that allows for wide-ranging community > participation, and in practice this happens. > > In my experience a large number of projects coming from the RDF world work > like this. Some from other areas, such as the FRBR stuff from IFLA has this > kind of process behind it, with a degree of standardisation agreed on after > wide-ranging discussion. (FRBR isn't yet available as an RDF vocabulary as > far as I know, but there is a "p2p" or "hacker community" based spanish > project to change this). In this case, the MeNow schema (still very infant in its acceptance) is a case where the community shapes the schema as well: In fact, the schema was developed in a world readable SubEthaEdit doc, although we haven't had an editing session lately. Basically, anything that I can think of or anyone mentions to me as being needed, i've added, thus far. The document itself isn't open full time, but only due to technical constraints, not anything else. In that way, the schema is somewhat P2P, although not in a technical manner due to lack of available resources.
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2004 00:36:38 UTC