On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Eric Miller wrote:
> the focus of this group should be on registry requirements (which are
> largely content independent).
>
> If its the view of the chairs to have this discussion here (rather than
> dc-usage, etc.) I took a crack at re-representing the DCQ document in a
> more machine processable manner...
if appropriate, comments are welcome.
>
> - http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
> -
> http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq%23
>
> If the chairs feel that this should discussion should be done elsewhere
> they have my permission to forward this message to the appropriate list.
I think we are in a catch 22 where I would acknowledge that the Registry
WG is not the right place to decide the content of 'comprehensive,
trustworthy etc' DCMI schemas .... but unfortunately no other DCMI group
has been persuaded to take up this responsibility. Certainly the Usage
Board do not see it as their role to express semantics in any sort of
syntax (if i understood correctly from meeting in Tokyo).
I would suggest the DC-Architecture WG as the best place for this
discussion, not least because it, of all the DCMI WGs, has most informed
people who might respond.
I do think it is v. important that we, (we being DCMI :-) do keep in mind
that we have to express semantics and agree on that expression, in syntax
that people are interested in, otherwise what is the point??
I will forward your mail to DC-Architecture [1] list....
Rachel
1. http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/dc-architecture.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|