What's next for LRMI in the context of DCMI?
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Stuart
Oct 27, 2014, 6:57:02 AM10/27/14
to lr...@googlegroups.com
At the close of last week, AEP, CC and DCMI announced that stewardship of LRMI has been transferred to DCMI effective October 23, 2014.[1] Over the coming weeks and months, we'll be working out many details of that stewardship ranging from community communication channels to the scope of work. Phil Barker framed the context of the transfer very nicely in his blog post of October 24.[2]
I'll try and keep this message as brief as possible and target immediate next steps so we see some semblance of a plan. Currently, when we say "LRMI" we mean two separate but interrelated things: (1) a specification (the schema) of classes and properties currently in version 1.1; and (2) a community that formed around development and advancement of the specification. Of these two things, transfer of the specification is probably the most straight forward.
The way community work is advanced in DCMI is not particularly different from the way LRMI has functioned in its 3-year development cycle. In a nutshell, both engage broad domain community input and discussion around issues, some of which funnel down into targeted work of one or more task group(s) charged with shaping (and publicly vetting) a final result. A DCMI/LRMI Task Group (TG) has been formed [3] with an immediate work package of handling the demands of a faithful technical transfer of the 1.1 specification. That TG has an open forum to handle the targeted work packages that will be informed going forward by broader discussions on this LRMI Google Group forum (app 350 members) and the DC-Education Community forum (app 200 members).
LRMI v.1.1:
The LRMI specification v1.1 is a fait accompli and has been transferred "as is" from the LRMI.net website [4] to the DCMI website [5] for long-term maintenance and access. But, technical work on v1.1 is not complete. Currently, the 1.1 specification within LRMI has no formal schema but only the HTML representation found at [4] & [5]. Within DCMI, curation of the LRMI specification going forward will occur at the level of individual classes and properties and that --among other significant reasons-- requires a formal, canonical schema with the means of referencing classes and properties by URI. Since 2000, all scheme (attribute space) and schema (value space) specifications within DCMI have canonical RDF representations with terms referenceable by URI. The LRMI specification needs one also. Getting this 1.1 schema technical task done is outlined in the current work package of the TG on the wiki. [3]
LRMI (EDUCATION) COMMUNITY:
With the 1.1 specification in place, the community must explicitly address the question of "what's next" and move forward with future developments (or not) based on community consensus and the will to get the work done. Over the past several months, this very fundamental "what's next" question has hovered over the conversations on the LRMI Google Group forum. Some of these hanging threads must now be picked up in scoping future community action. For example, see my post at [6] in which I ask the scoping question (yet again)...and Steve Midgley's response at [7] and Brandt Redd at [8].
Stuart
DCMI, Managing Director
DC-Education Community Chair
[1] http://www.lrmi.net/lrmi-transfers-stewardship
[2] http://blogs.pjjk.net/phil/on-lrmi-moving-to-dublin-core/
[3] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/AB-Comm/ed/LRMI/TG
[4] http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification
[5] http://dublincore.org/dcx/lrmi-terms/
[6] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lrmi/FRu7Cai5HE0/uX_BeypwFIYJ
[7] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lrmi/FRu7Cai5HE0/jLhAfhCwaWQJ
[8] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lrmi/FRu7Cai5HE0/MNTQqW7oAO0J
I'll try and keep this message as brief as possible and target immediate next steps so we see some semblance of a plan. Currently, when we say "LRMI" we mean two separate but interrelated things: (1) a specification (the schema) of classes and properties currently in version 1.1; and (2) a community that formed around development and advancement of the specification. Of these two things, transfer of the specification is probably the most straight forward.
The way community work is advanced in DCMI is not particularly different from the way LRMI has functioned in its 3-year development cycle. In a nutshell, both engage broad domain community input and discussion around issues, some of which funnel down into targeted work of one or more task group(s) charged with shaping (and publicly vetting) a final result. A DCMI/LRMI Task Group (TG) has been formed [3] with an immediate work package of handling the demands of a faithful technical transfer of the 1.1 specification. That TG has an open forum to handle the targeted work packages that will be informed going forward by broader discussions on this LRMI Google Group forum (app 350 members) and the DC-Education Community forum (app 200 members).
LRMI v.1.1:
The LRMI specification v1.1 is a fait accompli and has been transferred "as is" from the LRMI.net website [4] to the DCMI website [5] for long-term maintenance and access. But, technical work on v1.1 is not complete. Currently, the 1.1 specification within LRMI has no formal schema but only the HTML representation found at [4] & [5]. Within DCMI, curation of the LRMI specification going forward will occur at the level of individual classes and properties and that --among other significant reasons-- requires a formal, canonical schema with the means of referencing classes and properties by URI. Since 2000, all scheme (attribute space) and schema (value space) specifications within DCMI have canonical RDF representations with terms referenceable by URI. The LRMI specification needs one also. Getting this 1.1 schema technical task done is outlined in the current work package of the TG on the wiki. [3]
LRMI (EDUCATION) COMMUNITY:
With the 1.1 specification in place, the community must explicitly address the question of "what's next" and move forward with future developments (or not) based on community consensus and the will to get the work done. Over the past several months, this very fundamental "what's next" question has hovered over the conversations on the LRMI Google Group forum. Some of these hanging threads must now be picked up in scoping future community action. For example, see my post at [6] in which I ask the scoping question (yet again)...and Steve Midgley's response at [7] and Brandt Redd at [8].
Stuart
DCMI, Managing Director
DC-Education Community Chair
[1] http://www.lrmi.net/lrmi-transfers-stewardship
[2] http://blogs.pjjk.net/phil/on-lrmi-moving-to-dublin-core/
[3] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/AB-Comm/ed/LRMI/TG
[4] http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification
[5] http://dublincore.org/dcx/lrmi-terms/
[6] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lrmi/FRu7Cai5HE0/uX_BeypwFIYJ
[7] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lrmi/FRu7Cai5HE0/jLhAfhCwaWQJ
[8] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lrmi/FRu7Cai5HE0/MNTQqW7oAO0J
Stuart
Oct 27, 2014, 7:02:01 AM10/27/14
to lr...@googlegroups.com
Sorry, got my "scheme (attribute space) and schema (value space)" reversed...
Stuart
On Monday, October 27, 2014 3:57:02 AM UTC-7, Stuart wrote:
Stuart
On Monday, October 27, 2014 3:57:02 AM UTC-7, Stuart wrote:
...
LRMI v.1.1:
Within DCMI, curation of the LRMI specification going forward will occur at the level of individual classes and properties and that --among other significant reasons-- requires a formal, canonical schema with the means of referencing classes and properties by URI. Since 2000, all scheme (attribute space) and schema (value space) specifications within DCMI have canonical RDF representations with terms referenceable by URI.
...
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages