Votes? [was: Vocabularies issues]
norman at astro.gla.ac.uk
Mon Feb 4 10:25:09 PST 2008
On 2008 Feb 4, at 11:54, Frederic Hessman wrote:
> Thanks for the issues list, Norman - helps to bring things to a point.
And thanks for boiling them down to options 1, 2 and 3.
> Assuming that the discussion has basically already taken place, are
> we ready to simply vote?
Nothing will be final until we're talking about taking the document to
PR, but indications here will tell me how to adjust the language in
Certainly, now is a good time for folk to speak up.
> 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
I tend to agree with this, but I anticipate some disagreement here
once the WD is examined outside this list.
> 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
I'll make sure to include detailed rationale in the document. I don't
think this is an assertion that can be proved in advance one way or
the other. The discussion is only about the weight of anticipated
problems and benefits of either option.
> 3. Versioning
I'll reply in a separate message.
I basically agree with Rick on issues 1 and 2. Does anyone else have
strong feelings here or should I suggest that these two are
provisionally resolved, and adjust the text accordingly.
I feel that issue 3 requires a little more digging, to work out what
the underlying concerns are, and if there are complications we're not
yet aware of.
What do others feel?
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
eurovotech.org : University of Leicester
More information about the semantics