>>>>> "Deb" == Deb Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Deb> There was an awful lot of Core elements that were repeatable.
Deb> The "title" one, to be honest, confused me a little, for the
Deb> reasons you outlined.
Yes, iirc, they are *all* optional and repeatable for now. That's the
most flexible way to deal with them until we sort out, if ever, how to
restrict some or all of them further.
Deb> You might want to clarify this a bit in your explanation of
Deb> the metadata elements on your site. The description there
Deb> was a bit succinct, but now that you've expanded a bit, I
Deb> understand what it's for and why it's useful.
I think the spec should stay succinct for now; but I have on my TODO
list the start of a document that explains them (and gives example
usages) in more depth. I think this will be part of the RFC process
for LDP Core, if we pursue that path (a decision not up to me, though
I think it's a good idea.)
I suppose even if we don't pursue the RFC path, we'll need to write
some documents in support of the spec. I imagine that this will be
team-authored document, like the spec itself. We haven't gotten that
far yet. :>
Deb> Oh, the "ldpfind" tool is an awfully good idea. I'm a little
Deb> concerned about the name, of course, since the OSWG has
Deb> nothing to do with the LDP at the moment. Not to mention the
Deb> FreeBSD project, the GNOME Documentation Project, et al. I
Deb> don't think that it would be unrealistic to expand the scope
Deb> to include all open-source/open-content documentation
Deb> projects/repositories.
Yeah, don't get hung up on the name; that's just an example. :>
Speaking for myself only, as the LDP Core team hasn't talked about
this much yet, though I suspect they will all agree, I think we can
use LDP Core as the base for metadata schemas for several open source
projects. My guess is that Debian, GNOME, and FreeBSD would share
about 99% of this structure of LDP Core; and in that case, the name
isn't terribly problematic.
My preference and suspicion is that it will be in the
formally-specified vocabularies that various projects will tailor LDP
Core to their needs. It's important for us to all try, as much as
possible, to stick to the core elements as much as possible, for
interoperating and exchange.
So, for example, GNOME Metadata would be, essentially, LDP Core + one
or two GNOME-specific formal vocabularies. This would insure some
level of interoperability.
Deb> I can definitely see some massively useful things coming out
Deb> of your project, assuming that we can get everyone to
Deb> cooperate and submit entries into the "card catalog". In
Deb> fact, your project will completely eliminate the need for a
Deb> project that I've had cooking in the back of my head for a
Deb> while -- my (currently idea-form-only) "Open Source Index"
Deb> project. I even registered opensourceindex.org for it a
Deb> while ago, but haven't had any time to plan any further.
Deb> Your project is _much_ more useful, however, and if there's
Deb> anything I (as an individual or as one of the current
Deb> maintainers of the OSWG) can do to help, just let me know.
Deb> You've got me all excited about it, now :>
Oh, great. Someone told me that this is an ideal time to ask people
for help with your project; i.e., in the beginning, while they are
still excited about it. So...
Again, speaking only for myself, not the LDP Core team, though again
I'd be surprised if any of them object too strenuously... Here's what
I'd like to see you guys in the OSWG do: recruit, train, and support
"Metadata workers" to use the LDP Core and our tools to create
metadata records for LDP, OSWG, FreeBSD, GNOME, Debian,
etc. resources. One kind of non-technical, social way to help make
things interoperate is to have some continuity in the people who
actually create the metadata records for resources.
It seems to me that OSWG is nicely positioned to do this in
conjunction with LDP Core.
<disclaimer type="cautious">But, again, I'm only speaking for myself
here.</disclaimer>
Best,
<Kendall/>
