Skip to main content

Notice

The new RDA web platform is still being rolled out. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. Please report bugs, broken links and provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Stay updated about the web site milestones at https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/.

NISO Draft on Vocabulary Management for Public Comment

  • Creator
    Discussion
  • #118710

    Jakob Voß
    Member

    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/

  • Author
    Replies
  • #131719

    RDA Admin
    Organizer

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

  • #131667

    Arthur Smith
    Member

    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

  • #131664

    Arthur Smith
    Member

    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

  • #131661

    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

  • #131654

    Arthur Smith
    Member

    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

  • #131653

    Eva Méndez
    Member

    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

Log in to reply.