On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 04:26:11PM +0100, Rachel Heery wrote:
> > Usage Board requirements with respect to the registry.
>
> errh, Do you mean 'UB requirements with respect to the VMS'? .... I don't
> see the Usage Board as being a special category of users of the Registry.
> Rather the Usage Board (UB) uses the *VMS* for its specialist
> requirements. (and here one can substitute 'Tom's text files' for VMS if
> those are thought to be sufficient for requirements of the UB). I
Sorry, I meant VMS! My mistake. Too many postings for one day...:-(
> understand the Usage Board as 'guardians' of the canonical version of
> DCMI, and being responsible for historical audit. This means they will
> have very particular requiremments, which is why they need a VMS. The UB
> may decide to base the VMS on RDFS or not...
Agreed.
> As I see it 'ordinary' people (schema designers, software developers,
> metadata creators) and software applications will get sufficient
> information about DC element set(s) from the Registry service .... altho
> of course if people are really keen I guess they they can also look at the
> richer information in the VMS ( aka Tom's text files)...
Yes.
> My view would also be 'no'with regard to UB decisions and previous
> versions which I believe are not usually required by schema designers,
Fine with me.
> software developers, metadata creators, applications. I am not clear about
> Status. I need to know more about the purpose of the Status attribute to
> give a view as to whether Registry users will want to know that info. If
Agree with that too.
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-171-408-5784
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
|