* Mikael Nilsson <[log in to unmask]> [2005-03-10 18:03+0100]
> On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 14:27 +0000, Miles, AJ (Alistair) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Firstly I should say the designers of SKOS Core have considered
> > interoperability with DQC-RDF a major design goal from the very
> > beginning. I'm really glad we're having this discussion, as it gives
> > us a chance to evaluate whether we can reasonably achieve that goal,
> > with the SKOS Core Guide and Vocabulary Specification documents about
> > to go to first public working draft.
>
> When looking closer at SKOS, it seems that it offers just what is needed
> to replace the home-grown Taxonomy class of the LOM RDF binding. If SKOS
> reaches recommendation status, I'd certainly consider it for reuse in
> LOM. Is there a time plan for SKOS?
Would it be important to you/LOM for SKOS to go "Recommendation track"?
At the moment we are planning to publish it as Working Drafts leading to
a Working Group Note. But we're looking for evidence from the wider
community about the REC vs Note tradeoff? A Recommendation would take
longer to do, but would get more wide-ranging review from other
groups...
Dan
> That would also bring the LOM RDF binding into full conflict with IMS
> VDEX: http://www.imsglobal.org/vdex/
>
> :-) (I don't particularly approve of VDEX)
>
> /Mikael
|