At 09:40 PM 6/24/2001 -0400, Tom wrote:
>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.
fixed
>-- 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.
I added 4.7. for Fast track, see what you think
>-- 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.
fixed
>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.
fixed
>> + 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.
I changed to slightly different wording, please review
>> + 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".
done
>> + 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"
done
>> 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.
eliminated 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.
done
>> + 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.
Changed, please review wording
>> + 2.5.3. Agendas shall be available on the DC UB website
>
>"available on the UB page of the DCMI Web site"
done
>> + 3.1.1. Working groups
>
>"DCMI working groups"?
done
>> Proposal Requirements Table
>>
>> Elements Qualifiers Vocabulary Terms Encoding
>> Schemes
>
>"DCMI-maintained controlled vocabulary terms" (or simply
>"controlled vocabulary terms") would perhaps be clearer.
changed to "controlled vocabulary terms"
>> Name name Term Name of scheme
>
>Simply "name" for encoding schemes too?
done
>> Label Label Label/Acronym
>
>Simply "label" instead of "label/acronym"?
done
>> 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.
done
>> 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.
done
>Missing from the table is "type of term" (element, etc).
that's the reason for the four columns--don't think we need more than that?
>> + 4.1.2. Proposal is given preliminary review for completeness
>> by DCMI Managing Dirctor and UB Chair
>
>Director
done
>> + 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"
done
>> + 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.
fixed
>> + 4.5.4. Does not create problems for existing legacy
>> implementations if those implementations have followed
>> recommended practic
>
>practice
done
>General question on Section 4: should the description of
>fast-track procedures be folded in here?
See 4.7. I'd be happy to include the flowchart itself if you can send it
to me as an image.
>> + 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.
fixed
>> + 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"?
changed, please review wording
>> + 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.
fixed
>> + 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".
Substituted suggested wording.
Diane
See: http://128.253.121.110/DC-UB/DC-UBprocess3.html
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Diane I. Hillmann
Metadata Specialist
National Science Digital Library Project at Cornell
Department of Computer Science Voice: 607/255-5691
419 Rhodes Hall Fax: 607/255-4428
Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: [log in to unmask]
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
|