To follow on Stuart's clarification, this note is a process sanity suggestion.
The immediate concern is sorting out (at most) 3 documents and 1 deadline.
Doc 1: Finnish Finish, a DLib article on final DC5 Helsinki results
Doc 2: RFC #1, originally, the unqualified DC for simple discovery
Doc 3: DC-Simple, a succinct, coherent, extensible, ready-to-go description
Deadline: Doc 1 due in one week
There's been great confusion over whether Doc 1 == Doc 3 and whether
Doc 2 == Doc 3. For the sake of preserving our goals, I'll just speak
as if all 3 documents are distinct until such time as it's clear that we
all agree what they're for and whether two of them may be collapsed into one.
Stuart's note has clarified that Doc 1 (the article) is the single document
which, failing all else, needs critically urgent attention.
PROPOSED HERE for Doc 1 (the article):
In addition to describing DC5,
- that it synopsize each working subgroup's results,
- that it reference each working subgroup's COMPLETE report
(to reside on http://purl.org/metadata/...) as recommendations,
- that it reference a soon to be re-published draft RFC #1 (Doc 2)
- that it reference a soon to be available DC-Simple (Doc 3)
PROPOSED HERE for Doc 2 (RFC #1):
We discuss on the list whether it should remain purely unqualified DC,
or be re-oriented to include some sub-elements (, or something else?).
PROPOSED HERE for Doc 3 (DC-Simple):
We discuss on the list what exactly it should be, and how it should be
publicized (e.g., RFC #1? RFC #6?).
No one wants to see the great progress we've made since DC5 threatened
by hasty decisions on fundamental issues. Let's focus on Doc 1 and
not rush prematurely to closure on this thing called DC-Simple, whatever
it may be.
-John
|