I believe that is what Jose is interested in doing -- helping to revive
the momentum in the Agent WG (organizing some face-to-face meetings,
etc). He is involved in some European projects related to this topic.
Tom
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> My understanding is that the Agent WG is working on this. Not a lot has
> happened (I'm on the list), but this is such a huge thing, that I think it
> needs to emerge from a WG with broader consensus than our little group. So
> perhaps the Usage Group could request that the Agent group set some
> deadlines?
>
> Rebecca
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Thomas Baker wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Jose Borbinha, copied to this message, is interested in renewing the
> > momentum for a DCMI Agent Core. According to our current process, any
> > such proposal would land before the Usage Board, so I would like to
> > examine some assumptions and pose some questions. Depending on our
> > discussion, perhaps we could move this to dc-architecture, where anyone
> > could participate.
> >
> > -- I am assuming that a DCMI Agent Core would be similar to, but
> > orthogonal to, the current Dublin Core. In other words, it would be
> > a set of core elements -- elements that could be qualified -- only
> > the properties would refer to the class People instead of the more
> > generic Resources. The adoption of an Agent Core (DCAMES?), then,
> > would have no affect on the existing Dublin Core (DCMES).
> >
> > -- In my opinion, an Agent Core should be evaluated completely
> > independently of DCMES by asking: "Are these good, well-defined core
> > attributes, and are they useful for cross-domain searching"?
> >
> > -- In practice, people may want to mix and match from these two sets in
> > particular application environments -- people want to look at
> > Creators not just as names, but as entities (resources) that can
> > have arbitrarily large sets of properties of their own. Roland's
> > DC-in-RDF draft explains how this can be done without compromising
> > the dumb-down rule. However, I do not think the Usage Board would
> > need to rule specifically on the relationship between (say)
> > dc:creator and an Agent Core. For that, we would need a construct
> > like Application Profile (Element Profile?), which we do not
> > currently have.
> >
> > -- If we go the route of One Big Namespace (as is being discussed now
> > in dc-architecture), would the elements of an Agent Core go into
> > this, or would we create for it a separate namespace (such as we
> > did, perhaps wrongly, for DCMES)?
> >
> > Would anyone have any reservations about having the UB approve a
> > well-defined and sensible Agent Core? How thorough would our review
> > need to be? Would we set a higher standard for these than for any
> > other proposed elements?
> >
> > 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
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
|