Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Tod Matola <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Why dublincore.org vs purl.org/dc I think that is a clear PR issue. We have
> > our brand all over for free and I think purl.org/dc/ is less intuitive for
> > that task.
>
> I thought DCMI was a not-for-profit organization. (If it's not, please let
> me know because I would need to reconsider my status as a WG member.) Since
> when do we care about branding. Sure, getting the Dublin Core name out is
> nice, but it's pretty low on my priority list. By many groups following the
> lead of the Dublin Core, PURLs are the best-practice for namespaces, and
> have a persistence and permanence that I doubt dublincore.org will have.
Why what evidence is there that this is the case?
>
> I believe the issues of permanence are more important than any "brand"
> issues.
Why isn't an organization's brand important? Why do we use lawyers and TradeMarks
for such matters?
So you have issues with
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
(Note the mix of dd-name and dd/name)
or
http://www.ontoknowledge.org/oil/rdf-schema/2000/11/10-oil-standard#
What leads us to the conclusion that dublincore.org is less persistant than
www.w3.org? Maybe that is what needs addressed to move this along (or is there
something I am missing, help me out here)?
purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ will stay as is and will resolve to
dublincore.org/XXX/YYY/ . The purl is just a frame of mind. Could we not do this
with DNS and a copy of the file?
>
>
> >> I think one of the largest procedural problems with this group is that we
> >> seem to have no official way of reaching consensus. Things are proposed,
> >> complaints are raised, a few weeks later a completely different thing is
> >> proposed, and then after about a month, a draft proposal falls out of the
> >> sky.
> > Pretty much out of scope. If the chairs decide this is needed then they can
> > make it happen, till that time we have what we have.
>
> Are DCMI procedures written down anywhere, or do we all just sort of guess?
http://dublincore.org/about/organization/
> > There are many other arguments to why not associate a version number (the only
> > one I can think of is that it implies a level of maturity that may not be
> > there, where a date is free of that). I don't know all the arguments, nor do I
> > care to (we have mountains of email debating it).
>
> I don't see how a number implies any more maturity than a date, but I can't
> argue against your "many other arguments" if I don't know what they are.
> Perhaps if you could point me to where these "mountains of email" are, I
> could reconsider my choice. So far, all I've heard is that it was a closed
> AC decision, which I don't have access to. Perhaps someone who does can
> present a summary of the arguments?
Can someone please step in here, I don't seem to be doing a very convincing job.
>
> >> The fact that the tone of the group is not agreed-upon seems (to me at
> >> least) clear evidence that we need a more fair process.
> > I guess this is via lobbies (working groups, special interest groups...)?
>
> No. In the RSS WG, we use an online survey system to vote. This gives us a
> picture of the opinion of the group. One person, one vote as opposed to
> email methods where someone can send as many loud emails as they wish.
>
I was referring to DCMI process not WG in general. Still don't think this helps
decide what is the pattern of the namespace.
>
> >> I understand, but will you move the old terms along with the new one? Like
> >> the move from DCES 1.0 -> 1.1 -- even those elements that weren't changed
> >> switched namespaces.
> > This is a different issue (I'm not capable of defending this (pre-Tod)). I do
> > know this decision is not viewed as a wise move by many and I do think we are
> > trying to build policies and practices to guard against this type of
> > non-significant change.
>
> I understand -- I was just using that as an example. So you are going to
> prevent this type of thing in the future, correct?
>
Yes.
>
> --
> [ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
|