On 2/2/12 10:14 AM, Corey A Harper wrote:
> I'm open to other suggestions about where we can reach out to for some
> additional perspective.
It's not only a matter of "where" it's a matter of "how." We've all been
in on the lengthy conversations about terminology (and some of us went
through that again at length at a meeting in Seattle last week). You
can't expect much when you invite Russian speakers to a discussion
taking place only in Latin. The DCAM terminology is a barrier. You can
1) that terminology is necessary
2) people need to make the effort to learn it
but that approach may not lead to success, as I believe is the case with
the current version of DCAM. Reaching out should mean at least meeting
people half way and doing all that is possible to bring them along.
"Sink or swim" isn't an invitation.
I actually believe that the utility of DCAM must be and can be expressed
in terms of things people know and need to accomplish in their own
environments. Examples and use cases will be a big help. That may even
been a good place to start on this "round 2" effort: looking at what
DCAM gives us as practitioners could reveal what else is needed, if
anything, from such a model.
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bruce D'Arcus<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Jon Phipps<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> This post represents an interesting perspective from the scientific data
>>> community on some of the challenges to implementing semantic web solutions
>>> and integrating them into existing system architectures and programming
>>> models. This certainly looks to me like a place where the DCAP/DCAM
>>> architecture coupled with some concrete implementation examples could be of
>> FWIW, I think the issue is much less about models than it is about the
>> other stuff.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net