I think it can go to dc-general without waiting to reference the table.
Someone can send a follow-up next week, to let people know that a
summary of the comments is available.
Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata
> Initiative's Usage Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> Sent: 03 March 2006 09:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Response to dc-general about Type Vocabulary changes
>
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 08:54:49AM -0000, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > Looks fine to me. Wait until the rebuild - its only 10 days away.
>
> Andrew,
>
> If we all agree that is what the message should say, I'm
> wondering why we would need to wait another week for the
> dc-general posting, given that the UB has been criticized in
> the past for slow response times.
>
> On the other hand, if the message were to go out today, it
> could not include a reference to the tabular summary [1].
>
> What do others think?
>
> Tom
>
> [1]
> http://dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.dcmitype/2006-02
> -20.Type_Vocabulary_Public_Discussion.html
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata
> Initiative's Usage
> > Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
> > Sent: 02 March 2006 08:49
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Response to dc-general about Type Vocabulary changes
> >
> >
> > > 3. DCMI Type Vocabulary comment period (Stuart)
> > >
> > > Please read, for discussion:
> > >
> >
> http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.dcmitype/2006-02-2
> > 0.Type
> > _Vocabulary_Public_Discussion.html
> > >
> > > ACTION 2006-02-23 Stuart: Revise table (above),
> removing "UB" column.
> > > ACTION 2006-02-23 Tom: Get revised table from Stuart, post for
> > publication on March 13.
> > > ACTION 2006-02-23 Stuart: Provide paragraph for
> dc-general posting.
> >
> > For a dc-general message, I suggest something like:
> >
> > The public comment period for changes to the DCMI Type
> > Vocabulary [1] which ended on 31 January yielded some
> > important suggestions for improvements. The Usage Board
> > will consider these suggestions at its next meeting,
> > 29-30 April in Seattle. Many thanks to Ann Apps, Vladimir
> > Makarov, Gregory Renaud, and Misha Wolf for their useful
> > comments [2].
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://dublincore.org/usage/public-comment/2005/12/type-vocabu
> lary-changes/
> > [2]
> >
> http://dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.dcmitype/2006-02-20.Type
> > _Vocab
> > ulary_Public_Discussion.html
> >
> > Is this enough for now, or should we expand on this? Do we want to
> > get the message out right now (e.g., tomorrow), or should
> we wait for
> > the March 13 build, when [2] will be made available in its revised
> > form?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> > Director, Specifications and Documentation Dublin Core Metadata
> > Initiative
>
> --
> Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
> Director, Specifications and Documentation Dublin Core
> Metadata Initiative
>
|