Mapping from TellThemWhatYouThink terms to the consultation argot

[Harry Metcalfe]

Re: http://code.google.com/p/argot-hub/wiki/ArgotConstultionTermsFromTtwyt

This looks good, mostly. dc:valid and dc:available are probably close
enough to the close and start dates. There are two other things:

Within my schema, responseDocuments is a list of department response
documents, rather than a list of submissions to the consultation: I'm
sure this is what you meant, but it's a bit ambiguous on that page. In
any case, I think that these categories of document should be
disambiguated within this vocabulary. I'd suggest
consultationDocuments, submissions and responseDocuments.

Again within my schema, detail refers to the full content of the
consultation document, rather than a description that is fuller than a
summary. This is perhaps a moot point, though -- I've never been able
to make use of that field -- so perhaps it should be redefined here as
something more useful, which an abstract and a longer description
probably are. That might also tie in quite well with the teaser/
summary fields from the eGMS spreadsheet.

[Mark Birbeck]

Hi Harry,

> Re: http://code.google.com/p/argot-hub/wiki/ArgotConstultionTermsFromTtwyt
>
> This looks good, mostly. dc:valid and dc:available are probably close
> enough to the close and start dates.

Great.

> There are two other things:
>
> Within my schema, responseDocuments is a list of department response
> documents, rather than a list of submissions to the consultation: I'm
> sure this is what you meant, but it's a bit ambiguous on that page.

Oops...no...I misunderstood then. :)

I read somewhere that all responses to the consultation are published
publicly so I thought that this is what you were referring to. (I saw
in one of the forms for replying that you have to actually explicitly
ask for your response to be confidential if you want it to be.)

> In
> any case, I think that these categories of document should be
> disambiguated within this vocabulary. I'd suggest
> consultationDocuments, submissions and responseDocuments.

Sounds good. There is a way in Dublin Core to refer to other documents
that are part of a 'package' so my next step is to look at how we
might do that. (I'm trying to use other vocabularies as much as
possible, before we have to add our own terms.)

Also, I'm thinking that we should distinguish between the consultation
itself (which is essentially a document that requests input) and the
consultation feedback (which is the publication of the findings, along
with all the responses that were received). Obviously the two are
linked, but trying to put the whole lot into one 'bucket' is quite
tricky, in my view.

> Again within my schema, detail refers to the full content of the
> consultation document, rather than a description that is fuller than a
> summary. This is perhaps a moot point, though -- I've never been able
> to make use of that field -- so perhaps it should be redefined here as
> something more useful, which an abstract and a longer description
> probably are. That might also tie in quite well with the teaser/
> summary fields from the eGMS spreadsheet.

Right...that's what I was thinking. When I looked at some example
consultations they seemed to have a colleciton of descriptions,
ranging from *very* short, to slightly longer, to the entire text
itself.

Anyway, I'll add something to the wiki on this, so that you can look further.

Thanks for your feedback, and I think it gets us off to a pretty good start.

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)

[David Pullinger]

I must admit that I haven't looked yet, but in my Local eGMS there was an Alternative Title field. i think this would be very useful for Consultations as I am sure that people have 'short titles' for consultations rather than always using the long formal form?


David Pullinger
david.p...@coi.gsi.gov.uk
Head of Digital Policy
Central Office of Information
Hercules House
7 Hercules Road
London SE1 7DU
020 7261 8513
07788 872321



>>> Harry Metcalfe <ha...@thedextrousweb.com> 07/10/2008 09:04 >>>

This communication is confidential and copyright.
Anyone coming into unauthorised possession of it should disregard its content and erase it from their records.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

[David Pullinger]

I agree about separating out the consultation documents from the responses.

In essence the primary requirement here is to have consultation descriptions rather than every step of engaging with the consultation.

i would propose you separate out into a separate argot for responses.

David

David Pullinger
david.p...@coi.gsi.gov.uk
Head of Digital Policy
Central Office of Information
Hercules House
7 Hercules Road
London SE1 7DU
020 7261 8513
07788 872321

>>> "Mark Birbeck" <mark.b...@webbackplane.com> 07/10/2008 16:40 >>>

[Harry Metcalfe]

Sounds good -- Let me know when you're ready, and I'll have another
look.

Harry