Open tombaker opened 5 years ago
@tombaker - In what way(s) did the range changes violate the policy?
@kcoyle By "it could be argued", I mean that there were some terms outside of the DC-15 that were assigned formal ranges, such as license
, which was originally created in 2004 but first assigned a (non-literal) range in 2008, or valid
, which was created in 2000 but first assigned a (literal) range in 2008.
In both cases, it could be argued that the range assignments narrowed their semantics.
In my recollection, it was in fact recognized at the time that this would narrow their semantics, but the consensus was that this narrowing constituted an improvement, and indeed the range assignments were generally well received at the time (perhaps because the only people who really understood what they meant also liked them). I do not recall anyone arguing that the assignment of ranges would significantly hurt users in general, though there was some disagreement about specific range assignments (e.g., title
as literal because of use cases such as titles in Japanese).
I'd like for us to take a closer look at the components of this policy:
in the judgement of the DCMI Directorate
: should this be something like in the judgement of the DCMI Usage Board and Directorate
? Or just the Usage Board?likely to have substantial impact
: do we really mean negative impact
?functional semantics
: should we clarify what this means?loosening
(or broadening
) of semantics?rangeIncludes
) or implementation experience (e.g., potential cases where a property has been used in ways not intended or anticipated)?Tom,
ditto on the 'functional semantics' - is there another way to say this?
The DCMI Namespace Policy, Section 3C, says:
The change of
range
torangeIncludes
for some properties should be accommodated in a more nuanced policy. Potential points to be made include the following:It could be argued that the assignment of domains and ranges in 2008 already violated the language of the Namespace Policy, though that I can recall, nobody made this argument at the time.