On Feb 5, 2012 3:25 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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 claim that
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.


Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask]
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet