Feb. 22, 2006

From Metadata-Registry
Jump to: navigation, search

Agenda and Notes, Feb. 22, 2006

  • Documenting discussions about the UIUC Report from WebWise 2006
    • Stuart will send Tim & Co. some kind of formal statement that Diane and Jon are working on the project
    • After that, Diane will ask for details on what is actually available and from where for each of the collections UIUC holds for IMLS
    • Diane will provide model collection-based report and draft of collection level report for discussion by F2F meeting in April
    • Jon will continue to provide csv data as needed and also focus on ability to harvest data as the MMS evolves
  • GEM XML schema (required GEM vocabularies)

RDF schemas have been around for GEM forever, but providers have not been using them. Before Stuart and Oknam finalize the fixed schemas, some notion of what MMS needs is required. Stuart wondered if we should expose the DCMI XML binding for provider use, and also loosen the requirements for GEM vocabularies. After discussion it was determined to be more permissive about requiring GEM vocabularies and instead recommend them but allow others (also allow use of strings instead of only URIs for terms).

  • NSDL solicitation (pathway proposal)

Most critical piece is who we partner with for the proposal. State technology directors, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, etc., will make it look good. What we would be doing would be similar to IMLS but doing it for NSDL, moving resources into schools and their local systems. Brings into play everything we have determined to do for NSDL, different group of providers. We need to make sure how to keep from violating the federal prohibition against "double dipping."

Diane will look for Pathways/CI agreement about who will do what in the current understanding. The proposal needs to fit the solicitation, we could say that we could mirror the functionality and let Lee know that we could indeed take over the production services if necessary.

Diane will start writing, first for the one-two pager, then for the main narrative, to be ready by next week for Stuart. Stuart will try and find out when Diny's meeting with Lee is scheduled. Much tighter expectations for external partners in this proposal. Diane will full-fantasy treatement and Stuart will be more realistic.

  • Report on Versioning and version tracking by Stuart's grad student, distributed via email (if there's time)

Diane thought that the report was very useful, particularly in the categorization and description of the various possibilities for version tracking. The biggest issue is that SKOS solutions are primarily oriented towards note-like human viewable solutions, and we need more than that. Diane said that one of her upcoming tasks is to to a step-through of validation, and this might be an additional resource for the discussion we'll need to have on these issues. Stuart mentioned that Melanie would probably be moving on to her dissertation soon, but that Joe Tennis was very interested in working with us on this. Diane suggested that we might want to have Joe join us in our F2F meeting in Seattle, since he might(?) be coming to the UB meeting as well. Diane also asked Stuart to verify that a meeting between Jon, Ryan and Damon (Diny's tech guy) would be possible the day before our meetings.