Rachel said:
> Subsequent responses, in particular that from Stuart Sutton
> [2], tend to make me believe that 'domain specific' is more
> to do with the
> *recommendation* and *approval* process, rather than being
> anything persistent about the semantics or usage of the term.
> I quote from Stuart's mail
> <quote>
> So, instead of bearing an immense burden of cross-domain
> proof, we let domain-specific DCMI recommendations
> "percolate" up from domain-specific status to where many
> domains find them useful _in practice_ (i.e., cross-domain). </quote>
Ah, OK, thanks for that!
And I also agree with Roland's suggestion that a seeAlso out to a
human-freadable record of a term's approval etc is a good idea.
Maybe this really is a non-problem and I can forget about it, but can I
just puruse it a bit....?
Returning to Tom's initial posting, doesn't this make it quite tricky to
pin down Tom's suggestion that the scope of "simple DC" should include
all top-level elements with cross-domain status?
Yes, I can tell which terms are top-level elements and which are
refinements (from their human-readable definition and based on
rdfs:subPropertyOf in the machine-readable form), but how do I know when
the domain-specific to cross-domain percolation process is complete?
That change of status will be based just on implementation practice, and
(if I understand the messages in that thread correctly) not
registered/recorded in the DCMI descriptions/definitions?
But I think if I was to construct an XML Schema for Tom's version of
"Simple DC" I would need to know whether a term is to be permitted or
not?
I looked at Stuart's message which you cited and saw that it also
included
<quote>
However, _nothing_ in the DCMI model says that an element/element
qualifier
that has a DCMI recommendation of "Domain Specific" cannot be used by
ANY
discourse or practice community that finds it useful!
</quote>
I completely agree with the intention here, but I think constructing an
XML Schema for "Simple DC" following Tom's suggested model would
necessarily impose such a limitation, wouldn't it?
i.e. taking "audience" as an example (because it's the only term to
which this applies just now), I have to decide whether at this point in
time "audience" is still "domain-specific" and therefore not part of
"Simple DC" (and therefore not permitted by my XML schema) or whether
widespread use has made it "cross domain" and it is part of "Simple DC"
and allowed in my schema.
Pete
|