NISO Draft on Vocabulary Management for Public Comment

This is very much of interest! Thank you for sharing, Jakob.
2017-06-21 4:50 GMT-03:00 nichtich <***@***.***>:

I've finally read through this NISO (draft) report - it's a bit
inconclusive. Perhaps we should discuss it among ourselves a bit? It
wasn't clear how to provide feedback, but if there was some coordinated
comments from an RDA group maybe that would have more impact? Note that
the report uses the acronym "RDA" for "Resource Description and Access",
a library metadata standard -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_and_Access describes it.
The issues the report raises do look very similar to the things we've
been talking about: re-use, maintenance - changes and deprecation,
discovery, preservation, mapping between vocabularies, licenses, etc.
One thing that we have talked about but seems missing is the role of
"quality checks" for vocabularies - qskos etc. It also doesn't seem to
recognize that a vocabulary might be published by an organization
distinct from its owner. A lot of the discussion refers to Linked Data
language, but I think most of the report is independent of whether
vocabulary terms are identified by URI's or some other form of identifier.
The "Recommendations" section seems just a prelude to future analysis -
it describes
"a need for broader discussion and delineation of best practices to meet
the goals of the vocabulary-development community going forward"
and says the report is only
"intended to provide a basis for a more specific best-practices document."
Is there interest among this group in working on a joint commentary as
feedback to NISO?
Arthur

I tracked it down - comments on this NISO draft can be entered here:
http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/BibliographicRoadmap/
and are due by July 19 (2 weeks).
Comments already received are listed here:
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=18054
(7 so far)
Arthur

As one of the primary authors of the NISO draft, I'd urge this group to
make comments, and if the spirit moves, suggest some collaboration with
NISO on some further work towards useful best practices. NISO's real
interests are not really in this area, so being able to work with another
interested organization could make all the difference in whether or not
they choose to continue.
One of the issues that lead us to that rather inconclusive end was that the
group that had been appointed was not sufficiently deep in vocabulary
management experience/skills to attempt something more than what we were
able to produce.
And yeah, those of us involved in Resource Description & Access (RDA) call
you guys the 'other' RDA. :-)
Diane Hillmann
Metadata Management Associates

So I've added a comment with my own personal views, mentioning RDA-VSIG.
There are also two new comments from Juha Hakala at the National Library
of Finland, one of which went into the issue of URI ownership (and
emphasizing persistent ID's as an alternative) in somewhat more detail
than I did.
Arthur

Hi all,
I am happy to be part always of the “other RDA” (depending who is speaking) and happy to see that more people, like Juha, could be in the same position.
Any contribution to the NISO draft from this group is more than welcome!! Diane, any contribution from your experience in vocabulary management to this group is also more than welcome.
I love to see communities interact and enrich work, or what is best, do not repeat work!!
Best,
Eva
--
Dra. Eva M. Méndez Rodríguez
Associate profesor. Library and Information Science Department
Deputy Vice President for Strategy and Digital Education
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
C/Madrid, 128 (Dpcho. 14.2.17) | 28903 GETAFE (MADRID). Spain
Tlf. +34 916248620 | http://bit.ly/evamen | @evamen
De: apsmith=***@***.***-groups.org [mailto:***@***.***-groups.org] En nombre de apsmith
Enviado el: martes, 11 de julio de 2017 16:54
Para: ***@***.***-groups.org
Asunto: Re: [vocabulary_services] NISO Draft on Vocabulary Management for Public Comment
So I've added a comment with my own personal views, mentioning RDA-VSIG. There are also two new comments from Juha Hakala at the National Library of Finland, one of which went into the issue of URI ownership (and emphasizing persistent ID's as an alternative) in somewhat more detail than I did.
Arthur
On 7/7/17 4:41 PM, Metadata.Maven wrote:
As one of the primary authors of the NISO draft, I'd urge this group to make comments, and if the spirit moves, suggest some collaboration with NISO on some further work towards useful best practices. NISO's real interests are not really in this area, so being able to work with another interested organization could make all the difference in whether or not they choose to continue.
One of the issues that lead us to that rather inconclusive end was that the group that had been appointed was not sufficiently deep in vocabulary management experience/skills to attempt something more than what we were able to produce.
And yeah, those of us involved in Resource Description & Access (RDA) call you guys the 'other' RDA. :-)
Diane Hillmann
Metadata Management Associates
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 4:21 PM, apsmith <***@***.***> wrote:
I tracked it down - comments on this NISO draft can be entered here:
http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/BibliographicRoadmap/
and are due by July 19 (2 weeks).
Comments already received are listed here:
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=18054
(7 so far)
Arthur
On 7/5/17 1:56 PM, Arthur Smith wrote:
I've finally read through this NISO (draft) report - it's a bit inconclusive. Perhaps we should discuss it among ourselves a bit? It wasn't clear how to provide feedback, but if there was some coordinated comments from an RDA group maybe that would have more impact? Note that the report uses the acronym "RDA" for "Resource Description and Access", a library metadata standard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_and_Access describes it.
The issues the report raises do look very similar to the things we've been talking about: re-use, maintenance - changes and deprecation, discovery, preservation, mapping between vocabularies, licenses, etc. One thing that we have talked about but seems missing is the role of "quality checks" for vocabularies - qskos etc. It also doesn't seem to recognize that a vocabulary might be published by an organization distinct from its owner. A lot of the discussion refers to Linked Data language, but I think most of the report is independent of whether vocabulary terms are identified by URI's or some other form of identifier.
The "Recommendations" section seems just a prelude to future analysis - it describes
"a need for broader discussion and delineation of best practices to meet the goals of the vocabulary-development community going forward"
and says the report is only
"intended to provide a basis for a more specific best-practices document."
Is there interest among this group in working on a joint commentary as feedback to NISO?
Arthur
On 6/21/17 3:50 AM, nichtich wrote:
Hi
This may be of interest:
The NISO Issues in Vocabulary Management technical report is available for public comment from June 19 to July 19, 2017. To download the draft document or submit comments, visit the NISO project page at http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/BibliographicRoadmap/. All input is welcome.
Jakob
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/56698
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/pos...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/56698