Hello,


Dan Brickley wrote:

> Hmmm... the document says "This document is for discussion purposes only
> at this time", yet the message below suggest it is on the fast track to...
> something. Confusing.

Well I guess the confusing nature of this document is it related to the fact that
this is a DCMI policy that has been publicly reviewed. Does DCMI have to
define/develop a track for such of discussions? Are there draft and proposed
policies (I think not). I suspect that policy should be reviewed and issued
(comments?). I think the discussion (about this policy) is to obtain feedback as
to how much harm would be made by issuing such a policy.


>
>
> I don't believe I know what "The DCMI registry is the software repository
> of DCMI term declarations for all DCMI terms" really means, so would vote
> against this moving to anything other than discussion doc status without
> the term 'registry' being removed from the document. To leapfrog a
> "software repository" into critical status within the DC architecture is a
> rather bold move; certainly one which should deserve more than a weeks
> informed discussion.
>
> Before we start the timer on that discussion, I'd like to have a clear
> account from the proposers of this _discussion_ document explaining:
>

The timer started with Stu's original note [1]  and maybe with Siggie's request
[2] of me/webteam. I also want to point out that this document was issued several
weeks ago and it took my reminder of this deadline (sometimes we need them to get
things done) to illicit comments about the document itself.


>
>  - why the "namespace policy for DCMI" needs to be defined with detailed
>    reference to a "software repository".
>
>  - what problem that software is supposed to be solving
>
>  - plans for maintainance and development of that software. How long is
>    the code likely to be viable for? How many people know how it works?  What
>    constraints does the software design place on future decisiosn of the
>    DC architecture WG, if any?
>
> The current document reads like a bunch of interesting ideas for a
> software development project. I'm rather wary of having that mixed up with
> namespace management policy, which I've to date considered implementation
> neutral.
>

I am in agreement that we should propose that this document does not need to be
clouded by the inclusion of registry software (that we don't understand) context.
If we do this (remove the registry from the document) would it be sufficient to
replace it with context of RDF schema documents? I would assume that
XML documents have to come up in the discussion of the XML namespace since we
need an object to refer to. Until now the document has avoided that by referring
to this ambiguous "registry of terms".


>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Matola,Tod wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >  There is a revised draft of a DCMI Namespace Policy guideline on the DCMI
> > website at the following URL:
> >
> > http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/03/09/dcmi-namespace/
> >
> > This revised draft is available for 1 week of review and comment. After
> > which the revised draft will be submitted to a expert committee (selected by
> > the DCMI Directorate) for final review.
> >
> > Highlights of the revisions (based on discussions from the DC-Architecture
> > WG):
> >
> > 1) DCES namespace has been correct to remain consistent with DCES namespace
> > published to date.
> >  http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
> >
> > 2) Added a policy about persistence
> > VI. Persistence Policy
> > DCMI recognizes that people and applications depend on the persistence of
> > formal documents and machine processable schemas made available on the DCMI
> > Website and through the DCMI metadata registry. The DCMI pledges that as far
> > as they are able, formal documents and metadata schemas will continue to be
> > available throughout the life of the DCMI. Where a persistent resource is
> > modified, a change history will be archived.
> >
> > In the event that DCMI is disbanded, then any organization will be granted
> > the right to make a copy (at a different URI) of all public persistent DCMI
> > resources, so long as (1) they are not modified, (2) are preserved in their
> > entirety and (3) are made available to others free of charge.
> >
> > 3) "URI-based namespaces" was changed to "XML namespaces" (see
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names).
> >
> > Cheers Tod Matola
> > DCMI/OCLC Office of Research
> > [log in to unmask]
> >

Cheers Tod

[1]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0103&L=dc-architecture&F=&S=&P=1202

[2]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0102&L=dc-architecture&F=&S=&P=29233