Carefully inserting this morning's stems into the bouguet of missives
accumulating over the past couple days, I devine the following:
1. There is confusion as to what is being written at this point:
Stu is writing the DLib Report on the Helsinki Meeting and its
aftermath, in which the Finnish finish will be signed, sealed, approved,
and etched in a stone rendition of a smelly t-shirt. The deadline for
completion of this paper is next week, and I'm already on thin ice with
the most gracious and helpful editor known to me personally, Amy
Friedlander. I do not intend to disappoint her (again).
John Kunze is putting the finishing touches on RFC-1, which is intended
to be the definitive articulation of DC-Simple Semantics. The deadline
for this is not quite as hard as for the DLib paper, but its time we got
this done.
Tony and Paul are trying to focus our attention as well on a draft for
encoding DC in HTML.
2. Stu is guiltyof many things, not least of which at the current moment
is the conflation of Qualified and Unqualified variants of DC into an
unholy whole. I was operating under the assumption that people wanted
to fold a common set of sub-elements into DC-Simple. What could I have
been thinking? The sense of the group here is to take them back apart
and make clear that Simple is Simple. Period. No subelements in
DC-simple.
And in the bargain, I'll stop slashing the working group subelements. I
think I get it.
3. In light of (2.), I think the only major befuddlements about
DC-Simple are:
a.) what is our recomendation about Relation, which is unavoidably a
three-part thing (with the first entity implied)? Simon has offered a
nice summary of the alternatives and their pros and cons. I need
comment and guidance.
b.) We need reasonable lists of TYPES and FORMATS and plausible means
to grow them.
stu, who is very grateful for your patience and hard work.
|