Diane,
Comments on the Process draft below. For everyone else, the
important points are:
-- I thought the goal was to have DCMI cover _all_ UB-meeting-related
travel, budget permitting of course. If so, we do not need 2.2.2.
-- Do we need to fold in a discussion of fast track procedures
here (and the related decision points)? I am preparing a
graphic of the flow chart we sketched on the flip-chart.
-- 5.2.1: I thought we decided to keep the dc-usage Web archives
open to the public; at any rate, they are at this moment.
Many thanks to Diane for the really solid work.
Tom
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote:
> DRAFT--Dublin Core Usage Board Process
>
> Changes made during DCMI UB meeting in Dublin, OH, May 21-22, 2001
Is it the "DCMI Usage Board" or the "Dublin Core Usage Board"?
I can live with either as long as we have a consistent
explanation to match.
> + 1.3.1. Possession of an understanding of the development
> history and purpose of the DC element set and its
"Knowledgeable of the development..." fits better here.
> + 1.3.4. Able to communicate verbally and in writing in
> English sufficient to prepare documents and discuss complex
> issues in a group setting
Replace "sufficient" with "well enough".
> + 2.1.1.2. The second should be scheduled at a different
> time of the year, preferably close to other
> conferences, placed to make attendance convenient for
"placed" -> "so as"
> o 2.2. Funding for meetings
> + 2.2.1. Funding for meetings should be supported as much as
> possible by DCMI
> + 2.2.2. Funding for UB meetings held in conjunction with
> "regular" DCMI meetings or conferences may be supported by
> the member's institution (if that institution were already
> funding attendance at the conference/workshop)
Do we need point 2.2.2 at all? I thought our goal was to have DCMI
cover _all_ UB-meeting-related travel, budget permitting. It would
sure help us justify to our employers the time we spend on this. I
would prefer simply to remove 2.2.2.
> + 2.3.2. Members who miss two meetings in succession will be
> replaced by the DC Directorate
"will" -> "may"? It sounds like an iron rule here.
> + 2.4.3. Participation in discussion of proposals is
> encouraged
Do we mean "Attendance by interested outsiders is encouraged for
participation in discussion of proposals"? We also discuss
proposals online, and one could read this point in that light.
> + 2.5.3. Agendas shall be available on the DC UB website
"available on the UB page of the DCMI Web site"
> + 3.1.1. Working groups
"DCMI working groups"?
> Proposal Requirements Table
>
> Elements Qualifiers Vocabulary Terms Encoding
> Schemes
"DCMI-maintained controlled vocabulary terms" (or simply
"controlled vocabulary terms") would perhaps be clearer.
> Name name Term Name of scheme
Simply "name" for encoding schemes too?
> Label Label Label/Acronym
Simply "label" instead of "label/acronym"?
> Originator Originator Originator Maintenance
> body
"originator" -> "source of proposal", as in the text? If this is a
full check-list, I think we ask for some background information on
these too.
> Discussion Discussion Discussion
> summary summary summary
"Summary of post-proposal discussion" would be clearer, perhaps
moved to the end. Or perhaps we leave it out of this table, if
it is supposed to be a checklist for people when they first
submit a proposal.
Missing from the table is "type of term" (element, etc).
> + 4.1.2. Proposal is given preliminary review for completeness
> by DCMI Managing Dirctor and UB Chair
Director
> + 4.2.1. Announcements of comment period for proposals to be
> discussed by the UB, or pending registration of new
> encodingschemes shall be made on the DC-general list and
"encoding schemes"
> + 4.3.2. Shepherds should have knowledge of the proposal
> issues or be connected to the WG originating the proposal
Must shepherds be members of the UB (I think they should)? We do not
actually say this, and 4.3.2 even hints that shepherds could be
outsiders.
> + 4.5.4. Does not create problems for existing legacy
> implementations if those implementations have followed
> recommended practic
practice
General question on Section 4: should the description of
fast-track procedures be folded in here?
> + 5.2.1 For internal communication the UB uses the closed
> mailing list [log in to unmask] The messages are
> archived and made available to the UB only via password
The list is currently closed to membership and posting by
outsiders but the Web archives are open to the public. See
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-usage.html.
> + 5.2.2 Public discussions of UB related issues during public
> comment periods should take place on DC-GENERAL
Did we agree on this? I thought we agreed to try to keep the
traffic on DC-General low. How about "DC-General or
other working-group mailing lists"?
> + 5.3.2 Historic documents relevant to the UB work, like
> voting proposals and results from the first DC Qualifier
> voting are to be gathered and archived at the same page.
Stu, Beth, Harry: I see there is a slot for these on
http://dublincore.org/groups/usage/, and I believe Harry has
copies of the relevant Web pages from the SZTAKI Web site.
> http://www.dublincore.org/documents/ as all the other
I think the "www" may be redundant.
> + 5.3.4 The UB page maintains links to upcoming external
> relevant metadata, vocabulary and encoding scheme
> registries.
Not sure what this means... "external"?? We should, however,
have a point such as "The UB page maintains links to all XML/RDF
schemas of UB-maintained namespaces held on the DCMI Web site".
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
|
