I want to backtrack just a bit. Not that I don't think the issues being
raised are important (I think they are), but I don't want to lose sight of
the original goal of this thread - 2 proposals for extending the registry.
I've not heard any objections for the first proposal - including metadata
regarding DCMI documents and translations. I think we can go ahead with
this step. Does anyone disagree?
Pete raises a valid point about the second proposal - including information
about, and pointers to, other registries. This may be premature in light of
the fact that at least one of the currently distributed registries is being
used for development activity, and all are still determining their scope,
and what to include. I suggest we postpone this a while until the
distributed registries are better established.
Questions, comments, concerns, etc.?
Regards... harry
> Dear WG Members,
> As you may already be aware, the registry architecture is
> evolving from a
> centralized model into a distributed model. Our goal is to
> distribute the
> registry application (as an open-source project) into the
> communities that
> it is intended to serve. This effort began earlier this year with
> installations in Tsukuba Japan, Goettingen Germany and Bath
> England. Each
> of these registris is intended to serve a paricular community
> of practice.
> As such, this changes the nature of the original (Dublin
> Ohio) registry from
> a centralized model to a distributed one. The only
> difference being in the
> scope of the community it serves. The Dublin registry
> currently serves the
> DCMI community as a whole. Each of the other registries
> serve smaller and
> more distinct communities (although, admittedly their scope
> and definition
> is still being defined).
>
> Up until this time there has been a concious effort to limit
> the content of
> the Dublin registry to only terms approved by the DCMI Usage Board. I
> propose that it is time to expand upon this and to add the
> following content
> to this registry:
>
> - metadata regarding DCMI documents and translations
> - information about, and pointers to, other registries
>
> This change would serve two purposes; 1) it would further the
> registry goal
> of providing an authoritative source for in-depth information
> about metadata
> important to the community it serves, and 2) it would serve
> an an example of
> how other distributed registries can be extended to better serve their
> communities.
>
> I would like to solicit comment on this proposal and
> encourage you to send
> your comments, suggestions, concerns, etc. to this mailing list.
>
> Best Regards,
> Harry Wagner
> http://oclc.org/research/staff/wagner.htm
>
|