Makx, I agree. Early today I sent email to Palle, Andrew, Maewyn that as
they do their final edits this coming week that they review the Usage Board
process and specifically pointing to the Criteria for Evaluating Element and
Qualifier Proposals
(http://www.dublincore.org/groups/usage/documents/criteria.shtml) and the
materials proposals should include (3.2)
(http://www.dublincore.org/groups/usage/documents/process.shtml#proposals).
Stuart
-----Original Message-----
From: Makx Dekkers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:20 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Old proposals in process
Folks,
Just wanted to let you know my feelings on this.
I agree that the Usage Board should not take decisions that set wrong
precedents or that need to be taken back later. The UB should come to a
sound judgement based on sufficient information.
On the other hand, I strongly disagree with Diane saying: "Given that we
have taken a slowish and conservative approach with the DC-Ed proposals as
well, we should do the same with DC-Gov, and hope that they will understand
that these are still early days for the UB, and we're working to get the
process going better."
The Government sector may be one of the killer apps for Dublin Core. This
sector is now busy putting their eggs in the DC basket, on the assumption
that DC can meet their needs. It is my feeling that they will not understand
a slowish approach (I think they would understand a thorough and just
process). It is my opinion that we should do all we can to avoid losing
them.
Don't forget the European Commission agreed a budget for the MIReG activity
within four days of being asked, and that a group of civil servants
refrained from long holidays to produce this proposal. As someone said,
referring to the timetable of the proposal to be discussed in October:
> > Such speed I have not seen from the Commission nor from CEN (nor DC!
> > :>) in living memory!!
Again, I am not suggesting to put speed over thoroughness. Practically, if
there are any queries on the proposal, these should be raised now and
discussed with the editor of the proposal, in this case I would say Maewyn,
Palle and Andrew. Hopefully, these points can be clarified before the
meeting, enabling the UB to properly consider the proposal, accept certain
parts and reject other parts, ideally with suggestions for alternative
solutions.
Makx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Makx Dekkers e-mail: [log in to unmask]
tel: +352 25 33 07 fax: +352 25 33 08 GSM: +352 021 1999 10
-----Original Message-----
From: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage Working
Grou [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Diane I. Hillmann
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Old proposals in process
All:
Much as it makes us uncomfortable, I think we should not rush to judgment on
the DC-Gov proposal without getting the additional information we believe we
need to consider it fully. It seems to me that if we don't, we run the risk
of setting precedents that we may regret later. Given that we have taken a
slowish and conservative approach with the DC-Ed proposals as well, we
should do the same with DC-Gov, and hope that they will understand that
these are still early days for the UB, and we're working to get the process
going better.
My memory may not be serving me well on this, but I think the DC-Ed proposal
had been hanging fire for much longer than DC-Gov, which should be some
consolation.
Diane
At 08:14 AM 10/1/2001 -0700, you wrote:
As the newly-appointed shepherd for the DC-Gov draft proposal, I have
several questions regarding the relationship between the proposal and our
newly minted UB procedures etc. The DC-Gov draft proposal was in the
pipeline well before the UB's first meeting and the framing of its criteria
of evaluation and procedures to review and approval. I have begun a careful
review of the draft and see that it lacks a good deal of information that
the procedures ask for--e.g., much of section "3.2. Proposals should
include:". However, when I set the DC-Gov proposal beside the DC-Lib
proposal, they are nearly identical in the nature of their content. Both
are framed as application profiles as they might _emerge_ from UB
deliberations as recommendations, but lack stipulated support/explanatory
materials at the proposal level. For example, the DC-Gov proposal lacks, at
a minimum: (1) 3.2.3. An example or two if appropriate, making clear what
type of literal values are expected; (2) 3.2.8. A discussion of possible
overlap with existing terms; (3) 3.2.10. An analysis of the impact on
existing Dublin Core applications; (4) 3.2.11. An analysis of
interoperability with other metadata schemes; and (5) 3.2.12. A
justification of the need for the proposed element or qualifier in a
cross-domain application. I would be less concerned but for the fact that
some of the ambiguity in the proposal would be addressed with the addition
of such information. _But_, it appears to me that the hour is late to ask
these legacy proposals to go about adding a lot of explanatory material.
Advise.
Stuart
=========================================
Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
Senior Research Scientist: Gateway to Educational
Materials (GEM)
The Information School of the University of Washington
Suite 370, Mary Gates Hall, Box 352840
Seattle, WA 98195-2840
(206) 685-6618(V) (206) 616-3152(F) http://www.iSchool.washington.edu
========================================
|
