Sorry, Diane ... don't mean to make you cranky :-(. I would suggest that
we take section 4.7.2 and make it 4.6.3 under categories of recommendation
and eliminate all of the remainder of 4.7.
4.6. Categories of recommendation
4.6.1. CROSS-DOMAIN. Terms of general use and broad interest
across domains.
4.6.2. DOMAIN-SPECIFIC. Terms of interest to a limited domain or
set of domains.
4.6.3. OBSOLETE. For terms that have been superseded,
deprecated, or rendered obsolete. Such terms will remain in
the registry for use in interpreting legacy metadata.
I am assuming that things that are rendered obsolete were once
DCMI Recommendations. Therefore a DCMI Recommendation that
a term be made Obsolete is OK--it is nevertheless a recommendation.
The elimination of a category of non-conforming does not preclude
the inclusion of such terms in the registry if we think that is appropriate.
They would just be there without a DCMI Recommended status.
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane I. Hillmann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Mission and Principles, revised draftx
Well, hey, if someone would just suggest something else, I'd be happy to
fix it. I didn't have any alternative language in my notes ... :-(
Crankily,
Diane
At 10:16 AM 6/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Tom, the "non-conforming" language is in Diane's revised draft at
>4.7.1:
>
>http://128.253.121.110/DC-UB/DC-UBprocess3.html
>
>Stuart
>
> > I know that the process document still has this notion of
> > "non-acceptance" or "non-recommendation" which means nothing
> > more than that a proposal isn't going to become a DCMI Recommendation.
> > I'd really like to have us consider dropping this notion as a specific
> > status
> > --drop it both literally and from the UB process document leaving us
> > with a process in which the UB either brings a proposal forward as a
> > Recommendation (X-Domain, Domain-Specific, Obsolete) or it does
> > not (with explanation of why not).
>
>I agree. Are you referring to the notion of "non-conforming"? I thought
>we had dropped that already. What part of the Process document are you
>referring to?
>
>Tom
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
_
>___
>Dr. Thomas Baker
>[log in to unmask]
>GMD Library
>Schloss Birlinghoven
>+49-2241-14-2352
>53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax
>+49-2241-14-2619
|