For those that were not able to attend last weeks teleconference, there was
a strong suggestion on the table to reintroduce the original agent proposal
back in the ballot.
The version of the pre-ballot document that reflects this is
http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/dc/dcqballot/DCQBallot-20000308.html
For those people that requested this, please re-examine the agent sections
of this document to make sure we accurately reflected the wg's deliverables.
This basically brings us, however, back to unfortunate issue of how to move
forward.
We seem to have 2 competing ways of representing the Agent working groups
deliverables. And we (the usage group) need to address how best to handle
this in the balance of current implementation and future evolution and
modularity. These issues will come up again and the sooner we can nail
these down, the better...
The two ways that are currently on the table for how to handle Agents are
reflected in the following documents:
1) Separate agent core vocabulary and introduction of CCP semantic
refinements: http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/dc/dcqballot/DCQBallot-20000304.html
2) Back to the original agent proposal:
http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/dc/dcqballot/DCQBallot-20000308.html
I'm not sure what to do here folks... however, if we don't resolve this
soon, my suggestion is to agree to disagree. Vote on what we can agree to
vote on (which I think is everything but the agent work), and get a
qualifier document out with a set of fairly aggressive timelines for
re-opening (and closing) the agent discussions.
eric
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|