Thanks for the comments Eric. I believe that Tom is organizing the effort
to clean up my prose and will have something by Monday.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller,Eric [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 12:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: More on Process
>
>
> Carl writes...
>
> > Given Stu's latest statement on process and the lack of
> understandable
> > guidelines, I'm having a heck of a time participating in the
> > voting process.
> > So's that I don't get accused of being a whiner and
> > complainer, I'm going to
> > try to propose a solution. What follows is an attempt at
> > guidelines for the
> > qualification process. Without agreement on such guidelines
> (not these
> > exactly but someting of this nature) and the articulation of those
> > guidelines in the public document that lists the qualifiers,
>
> (introductory text for qualifier document removed...)
>
> Excellent! I think this is a very clear explanation of what
> I think many of
> us have been trying to say all along. I think a version of
> this should
> certainly be included in the qualifier document.
>
> > In my humble opinion this is not "reverse engineering" or
> "theory" but
> > rather common sense and it represents something from which
> I can write
> > programs that conform to it. I am willing to vote on
> > qualifiers based on
> > these principles.
>
> I fully agree. Clear principals are certainly required for
> voting. I think
> this email, in conjunction to what we wrote in Frankfort will
> be the basis
> for these principals.
>
> Tom, Carl, (others?) would it be possible for you to merge
> these into a
> cohesive introductory principals document?
>
> > If somewhat wants to articulate other
> > principles that can
> > be used as the basis for constructing machinery to use Dublin Core
> > descriptions, then I'd like to see them so I can vote on
> > qualifiers based on
> > them.
>
> I've given up on trying to articulate other principals for
> the time being :)
> so given your clarifying introduction, would it be possible
> to add to this
> what the actual 'things' are called that are being describing
> with all of
> these elements and qualifiers?
>
> --
> eric
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|