Replies: 7 comments
-
I voted "tending yes though with revisions". I think it is slightly problematic to model WEMI things as RDF classes, but perhaps we could wrap OpenWEMI in an discussion of use cases addressed by defining them as classes. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I voted "tending yes though with revisions" I should state that I was part of the working group that produced the proposal, so it would be odd if I didn't tend to yes, but I think discussion so far has resulted in useful revisions to the definitions and raised other points that could usefully be addressed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I voted "tending yes though with revisions" because I was part of the discussions and it seemed to me that those were not finished yet. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Just like @annakasprzik above :-) I voted "tending yes though with revisions" because I was part of the discussions and it seemed to me that those were not finished yet. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I also voted "Tending yes, though with revisions"; echoing your reasons. (I hope that concrete use cases can show how these terms may effectively coordinate descriptions using various domain-specific vocabularies. E.g. if these vocabularies are linked to (defining subclasses or subproperties of) this shared "coordination" vocabulary.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
There are two elements to be considered:
All of the comments so far are about the documentation, and none relating to the vocabulary. Perhaps we need a separate poll for the vocabulary? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I didn’t vote because I’m not on the board… but in reply to Karen’s
observation about most comments being about the documentation rather than
the ontology, it is also interesting that the comments in the poll so far
do not point to user studies on how people external to the organization
engage with documentation. That is, “what makes accessible documentation
for a product’s growth and adoption”? Is there a chance that the votes have
an inherent bias in their leanings based on how voters would like to engage
with the documentation? (As opposed to a potential audience of 15,000
information professionals at various stages in their careers).
All the best,
-Hugh
…Sent from my iPhone
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:22 PM Karen Coyle ***@***.***> wrote:
There are two elements to be considered:
1. The RDF vocabulary
2. The documentation
All of the comments so far are about the documentation, and none relating
to the vocabulary. Perhaps we need a separate poll for the vocabulary?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#124 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAJ2JUJNKBTUV6QQP4B36LY2B2ORAVCNFSM6AAAAABFDEXI52VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43SRDJONRXK43TNFXW4Q3PNVWWK3TUHM4DSMBWHEZTS>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
See #123
10 votes ·
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions