Re: Vocabularies issues

Thanks for the issues list, Norman - helps to bring things to a point.

Assuming that the discussion has basically already taken place, are we ready to simply vote? If so....

1. Format of non-distributed "Master-vocabulary":
   _X_ nothing mandated (i.e. it's the business of the publishers and
   not ours to decide how publishers do their hidden work)
   ___ Turtle
   ___ text
   
2. Format of the published vocabularies:
   _X_ XML or Turtle (let Darwin decide, assuming that the unproven
   assertion that XML alone isn't good enough is true)
   ___ XML
   
3. Versioning
   ___ explicit in namespace (e.g. http://myvocab.org/myvocab_v1.1#mytoken)
   ___ hidden, like in Dublin Core (e.g. http://myvocab.org/myvocab/#mytoken)
   _X_ both, a new option: the hidden version is the latest, but really
   points to explicitly labeled version, so that old versions remain accessible.

My opinion on issue 1 is very strong: we have NO business mandating how a publisher maintains the unpublished (!) master vocabulary.

My vote on issue 2 is "libertarian" and meant to encourage us to get a workable compromise (I still don't see why we can't just use XML, but I'm willing to bow to the experts on this).

My vote on issue 3 is cheating, since Norman didn't list the third option: hidden versioning is convenient for most users as long as there is a mechanism for determining what version one has read in the past (to see if anything has changed) - I presume we can come up with some recommendation on this important point? Doesn't Dublin Core have something like

        <nonskos:vocabularyVersionNumber>1.1</ nonskos:vocabularyVersionNumber>????

Rick Received on 2008-02-04Z12:54:55