[TSC-public] Announcing a revision of technical work process

Richard Smith rsmith at fhiso.org
Wed Feb 17 15:49:31 CST 2016


On 17/02/16 16:12, Luther Tychonievich wrote:

> All areas where technology and family history intersect and standards
> may be appropriate to be within the scope of the TSC.  However, as that
> scope far exceeds immediate resources, the TSC suggests priorities that
> focus on a smaller subset of that scope at any given time.
>
> 1. Build consensus on the nature of vocabularies within future FHISO
> standards. A draft policy produced by the TSC is available:
>
>    http://tech.fhiso.org/policies/vocabularies

As Luther says, this is still a draft, but it's an area where we think 
it necessary for determine FHISO's policy fairly soon.  This draft was 
written by Luther and me, with later contributions from Tony Proctor, 
who has been appointed vice-chair of FHISO.  Our starting point was the 
observation that the Sources & Citations Exploratory Group (S&CEG) was 
leaning towards using URIs as identifiers.  We are proposing that as 
formal FHISO policy, and have supplemented that with what appears to us 
to be best current practice for vocabularies based on URIs.

There are some points in the current draft where we've been unsure what 
to recommend; generally these points are followed by some indented 
discussion, and we'd very much like to hear opinions on these points. 
But feel free also to comment on anything in the draft.  If you think 
we've got it wrong, or have omitted something important, let's discuss 
it on this list.  Our intention is that this policy will apply to all 
items of vocabulary in FHISO standards unless there are exceptional 
reasons to deviate from the policy.  This means it's worth taking a bit 
of time to get right.

The TSC will try to judge what consensus emerges from any discussion and 
incorporate it in the policy document before we adopt a final version.

Speaking personally, my biggest concern is whether or not we should 
incorporate vocabulary version numbers in the term URIs.  Common sense 
(and the draft policy) says obviously we should, but I've lost track of 
the number of standards I've seen where an early (or pre-release) 
version number has become "frozen" in URIs.  Perhaps some list members 
have thoughts on this?


PS Apologies for the email last night that came to this list by mistake.

-- 
Richard Smith                    rsmith at fhiso.org
FHISO Technical Standing Committee Co-Coordinator



More information about the TSC-public mailing list