NEW Draft Criteria

Good Afternoon All!

Just wanted to update everyone on what we've been up to. Alan and I have collaborated together in revising the Draft Criteria questions. I wanted to post them up and let you all see and get some feedback before I proceed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Have a good weekend!



1. Is this a single vocabulary or a collection of vocabularies?

2a. Does the vocabulary or collection of vocabularies have a governance structure?
2b. Does the vocabulary or collection of vocabularies have overview documentation and a cookbook/ user guide? Is that document contained in the governance structure and maintained?
2c. Do all vocabulary terms have definitions? Are they maintained? Are they promoted/ required by the governance structure and terms of use?

3. Only if single vocabulary: Is the vocabulary explicitly versioned and are earlier versions available online?

4. Only if single vocabulary: Does the vocabulary make a clean distinction between types and instances?

5a. Is the vocabulary “flat” or hierarchical? (if collection of vocabularies, the answer can be "varies”)
5b. If hierarchical and only single vocabulary, is it extensible to new levels?
5c. Is the single vocabulary connected to a larger context? (ie: linked explicitly to upper level/ lower-level/ peer vocabularies)

6. Is the vocabulary or collection of vocabularies available online, in a programmatically accessible XML-based format, with HTTP-style URIs?

7. Is the vocabulary or collection of vocabularies designed/suitable primarily for Discovery (search) or for Use (markup)? (if collection of vocabularies, the answer can be "varies”)

8a. Do mappings exist to other vocabularies? Are they maintained?
8b. Have one or more science/ disciplinary communities approved and/or adopted the vocabulary or collection of vocabularies?

9a. Is the vocabulary or collection of vocabularies hosted in a stable namespace with a well-known technical contact?
9b. Is there a well-documented system for the suggesting new terms and having them adopted for the larger community? (E-mail request to the author/maintainer? Formal committee/ review structure?)

Andy's comments

<p>The questions seem more "answerable" to me than the last version of the criteria. A few questions/suggestions:<br />
- there could be a sentence at the start of the criteria asking person to provide urls for items where they are available<br />
- later we could provide links to "help" pages for each of these items explaining more info about how one would answer these questions.<br />
- I like the idea of breaking some criteria into a,b,c (items 2,5,8,9) however some of the lettered items still have multiple questions. should these be broken down into additional lettered items?</p>
<p>- Might be better to label section 2 "Governance and Documentation" since it deals in both these areas<br />
- i'm not sure how to do it but it seems that section 5 should ask about modularity of the vocabulary in some way. Perhaps someone else could suggest how to do this.<br />
- In 6 I suggest we change "HTTP-stype URIs" to "de-referencable Permanent Resource Identifiers (PRIs) (ie. HTTP-style)"</p>

initial feedback on criteria

Good stuff. here are a few initial reactions on the above.

Maybe my first question is "Draft criteria for what?" I think the answer is "Draft criteria for a vocabulary that is appropriate to use on CMSP" -- does that sound right?

1) How is the answer to this question used as a criterium? Are we expecting collections to be split up? I think it's better if the questions are answered one vocabulary at a time, and vocabularies are managed individually.

2b) What should the cookbook/user guide be about? How to govern the vocabulary, how to build it, or how to use it?

4) I think I know what this means and maybe why it is relevant, though I am not sure it is an important Yes/No criterium.

5) Is hierarchical considered better than flat?

9a) "well-known" perhaps could be "well-advertised"?
9b) This question seems actually about governance, not contact info.
9) I think there is also need for a responsible person, in addition to the technical contact (they are not necessarily the same -- the responsible person is the authority who 'owns' the system, and the question here is whether that person is well-advertised.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.