NISO Draft on Vocabulary Management for Public Comment

21 Jun 2017
Groups audience: 

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

--
Jakob Voß
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de/

  • Amanda Moura's picture

    Author: Amanda Moura

    Date: 21 Jun, 2017

    This is very much of interest! Thank you for sharing, Jakob.

    2017-06-21 4:50 GMT-03:00 nichtich :

    > 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
    >
    > --
    > Jakob Voß
    > Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network
    > Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
    > +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de/
    >
    > --
    > Full post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-
    > interest-group/post/niso-draft-vocabulary-management-public-comment
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post:
    > https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/56698
    >
    >

    --

    *AMANDA PACINI DE MOURA**TAXONOMY CONSULTANT – RURAL HORIZONS*

    Rua Pinto Gonçalves, 31 - Perdizes
    São Paulo - SP - 05005-010 - Brazil

    *PH**ONE* +55 11 2532-4526
    *MOBILE *+55 12 98157-0967
    *SKYPE* amanda.pacini.moura
    *WEB *solidaridadnetwork.org

    *ruralhorizon.org *

    *Please subscribe to our newsletter *here.

  • Arthur Smith's picture

    Author: Arthur Smith

    Date: 05 Jul, 2017

    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
    >

  • Arthur Smith's picture

    Author: Arthur Smith

    Date: 05 Jul, 2017

    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
    >>
    >

  • Diane Hillmann's picture

    Author: Diane Hillmann

    Date: 07 Jul, 2017

    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/post/niso-draft-vocabulary-management-public-comment
    > Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    > Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/
    > mailinglist/unsubscribe/56698
    >
    >

  • Arthur Smith's picture

    Author: Arthur Smith

    Date: 11 Jul, 2017

    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

  • Eva Méndez's picture

    Author: Eva Méndez

    Date: 11 Jul, 2017

    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=aps.org@rda-groups.org [mailto:apsmith=aps.org@rda-groups.org] En nombre de apsmith
    Enviado el: martes, 11 de julio de 2017 16:54
    Para: vocabulary_services@rda-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

submit a comment