Argot for a list of consultations [was Re: RDFA for Consultations and foaf/vcard/replyByEmail]

[Mark Birbeck]

Hi Harry,

(I've snipped paragraphs relating to issues discussed in separate threads.)

> Finally -- I think we need an argot to describe a list of consultations,
> otherwise things will be hard to discover.

That's interesting. Is the list itself something that has a 'type'?
I.e., is there some kind of 'parent' or 'umbrella' consultation that
contains a list of other consultations?

Or are you thinking of things like search results, or something like that?

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.b...@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)

[Harry Metcalfe]

There's no natural parent for a consultation, really, other than a
department. I'd say we might be able to have something like
ArgotPublications which is a child of ArgotOrganisation, or something
like that -- what do you think?

I suppose you could apply it to search results, but I'm thinking more of
lists of documents of a particular type, eg:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations.htm
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations-closed-with-response.htm

Harry

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 12:03 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Harry,
>
> (I've snipped paragraphs relating to issues discussed in separate threads.)
>
> > Finally -- I think we need an argot to describe a list of consultations,
> > otherwise things will be hard to discover.
>
> That's interesting. Is the list itself something that has a 'type'?
> I.e., is there some kind of 'parent' or 'umbrella' consultation that
> contains a list of other consultations?
>
> Or are you thinking of things like search results, or something like that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
--

Harry Metcalfe
Tel: 07790 559 876
Web: http://thedextrousweb.com
Twitter: @harrym, @dextrousweb

[Mark Birbeck]

Hi Harry,

> There's no natural parent for a consultation, really, other than a
> department. I'd say we might be able to have something like
> ArgotPublications which is a child of ArgotOrganisation, or something
> like that -- what do you think?

That sounds good. We'd only need ArgotPublications I guess; whether
some other argot wants to include that as part of itself is an issue
for the other argot. (I.e., ArgotPublications would be
self-contained.)

> I suppose you could apply it to search results, but I'm thinking more of
> lists of documents of a particular type, eg:
>
> http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations.htm
> http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/consultations-closed-with-response.htm

Yes, that's interesting. Would you say that the container itself is a document?

I realise it probably doesn't feel like it ought to be, at first
sight, but it would be much easier if it was; you're almost certainly
going to want to put some information into the container, such as a
title ("Closed with responses") and before you know it you'll want to
add subjects or tags, dates, publishers, and so on.

I'll look around to see if there are any natural collection-like
vocabularies out there.

[Harry Metcalfe]

On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 11:01 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Yes, that's interesting. Would you say that the container itself is a document?
>
> I realise it probably doesn't feel like it ought to be, at first
> sight, but it would be much easier if it was; you're almost certainly
> going to want to put some information into the container, such as a
> title ("Closed with responses") and before you know it you'll want to
> add subjects or tags, dates, publishers, and so on.

Intuitively, no, but as you say, there are definitely commonalities.
Perhaps if we make the document type explicit, that would work? dc:type
with list, consultation, white-paper, green-paper, or something?

> I'll look around to see if there are any natural collection-like
> vocabularies out there.

Sounds good.