Stuart:
Just back from ALA and plowing through messages. I see the changes
there--is your browser perhaps viewing a cached document?
Diane
>Diane, I'm confused. The document you point to doesn't
>include any change to these sections from the last revision.
>
>Stuart
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Diane I. Hillmann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:28 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Mission and Principles, revised draftx
>
>Done. See: http://128.253.121.110/DC-UB/DC-UBprocess3.html
>
>Diane
>[a.k.a., "Her Crankiness"]
>
>At 12:25 PM 6/12/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>>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 For terms that have been superseded,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
|