search

dcmi / usage

DCMI Usage Board - meeting record and decisions
8 stars 5 forks source link

Namespace Policy support for other DCMI community vocabularies #6

Open tombaker opened 6 years ago

tombaker commented 6 years ago

The following vocabularies are published by DCMI, may be cited in ISO 15836-2, and should arguably be listed in the DCMI Namespace Policy with a clarification of DCMI's maintenance commitment:

stuartasutton commented 6 years ago

Tom, while I'm not making an argument that these value vocabularies should not be folded into the namespace policy, I do want to point out that these vocabularies stem from a no-longer-active DCMI Collection Description Community--i.e., that they are "community specifications" just as are the LRMI schema and its value vocabularies (see: http://dublincore.org/documents/#communityspecifications). Do you want to amend the namespace policy to include community specifications or to simply note that community specifications need to conform to the general requirements of the namespace policy.

tombaker commented 6 years ago

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 07:05:58AM -0700, Stuart Sutton wrote:

Tom, while I'm not making an argument that these value vocabularies should not be folded into the namespace policy, I do want to point out that these vocabularies stem from a no-longer-active DCMI Collection Description Community--i.e., that they are "community specifications" just as are the LRMI schema and its value vocabularies (see: http://dublincore.org/documents/#communityspecifications). Do you want to amend the namespace policy to include community specifications or to simply note that community specification need to conform to the general requirements of the namespace policy.

I think DCMI should provide a list of vocabularies under its umbrella and clarify the nature of its commitment to their ongoing maintenance (or lack of such), which could vary case-by-case. The Namespace Policy may not be the best place to do this, but perhaps there should be some acknowledgement there of community specifications as a whole.

In this specific case, the ISO committee is proposing that DCMI recommend the use of the three DCMI collection description vocabularies. If we were to accept this proposal, we should anticipate that DCMI will be asked about the status of these vocabularies and what options exist for their maintenance.

stuartasutton commented 6 years ago

Yes, I understand and agree:

"If we were to accept this proposal, we should anticipate that DCMI will be asked about the status of these vocabularies and what options exist for their maintenance."

My take is, however, that regardless of the conclusion on the ISO proposal, such questions regarding status and maintenance could/will come up with both Collection and LRMI and, in my opinion, should be handled clearly as DCMI Community Specifications and in the same manner--otherwise, we invite unnecessary speculation about why this and not that. DCMI policy for community specifications namespaces could be incorporated into the current DCMI namespace policy document or treated separately and merely referenced from the current policy page.

tombaker commented 5 years ago

Other vocabularies currently under the DCMI umbrella are:

stuartasutton commented 5 years ago

As an aside, I think that the DCMI community vocabularies should follow the basic contours of the current DCMI namespace policy so how things develop can be consistent/predictable across the family of specifications.