- From: Miles, AJ \(Alistair\) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:36:13 +0100
- To: "Thomas Baker" <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Perhaps a slightly confusing name, but in a project management (e.g. prince2) context 'configuration management' means a system for controlling change to ensure quality, and that's what we need for RDF vocabs. I.e. we need to know how to support *commercial strength* RDF vocab and ontology development. If you've got 'The Little Prince2' look at section 6.1.1 'Planning Quality' ... very useful, tho I better not reproduce it here for fear of copyright infringement. It highlights 5 processes: Planning: this is what we did when we discussed the policy statements section of the SKOS Core spec - we decided what level of configuration management is required, and we wrote a process for achieving it. Identification: this means identifying all the components of a product. In the case of SKOS Core this is all the properties and classes, in the case of a generic RDF vocab it could be modules as well. Control: this means 'freezing' products and making changes only within a formal (or at least clearly defined) procedure, involving e.g. access rights, version tracking. For SKOS Core this is editorial responsibility, historical snapshots, and the review process. Status accounting: this means keeping a record of current and historical data for a product, especially relating to the status of the product. For SKOS Core this is per-term stability levels. Verification: verifying that actual status matches recorded/authorised status. We could do that e.g. by checking if changes have occurred to a class or prop between versions that are not allowed by the term's stability level. An analogy is e.g. car or aerospace engineering. With good configuration management you can track a problem back to the specific batch of faulty nuts or bolts. With poor configuration management you have no idea what went wrong or how to fix it. Cheers, Al. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_management > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Baker [mailto:tbaker@tbaker.de] > Sent: 07 July 2005 13:03 > To: Miles, AJ (Alistair) > Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: Re: [VM] Configuration management for RDFS/OWL ontologies > > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 02:51:12PM +0100, Alistair Miles wrote: > > After the discussion on the SWBP-WG VM telecon yesterday I put > > down some thoughts on how configuration management for RDFS/OWL > > ontologies ought to be done, see: > > > > http://esw.w3.org/topic/ConfigurationManagement > > > > Has anyone written anything like this down already? > > DCMI practice for "versioning" terms is described > -- unofficially, from a DCMI perspective -- in > ftp://ftp.cenorm.be/public/ws-mmi-dc/mmidc148.pdf. > > I'm curious about the choice of words "configuration > management". A Google search on '"configuration management" > site:w3.org' > does not show any obvious sources for a definition in the W3C context. > > Tom > > -- > Dr. Thomas Baker baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de > SUB - Goettingen State +49-551-39-3883 > and University Library +49-30-8109-9027 > Papendiek 14, 37073 Göttingen > >
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 12:36:19 UTC