------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:12:58 +0200
From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
To: DCMI Usage Board <dc-usage@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Cc: Makx Dekkers <makx@makxdekkers.com>
Subject: Process for amending definitions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current discussion about the definition of "date" raises
a basic question with regard to process (the issue being that
the current definition does not explicitly allow a date range).

This issue would seem to fall under the DCMI Namespace Policy,
and specifically under Part III ("Policy concerning classes
of changes to DCMI terms").

In the case of "date", a clarification of the definition
to specifically allow ranges would seem either 

-- to fall somewhere between Type C (Semantic Changes) and
   Type B (Substantive editorial errata);

-- or (probably, by default) directly under Type C.

The condition triggering a change in "namespace URIs" (sic)
is that of "changes of definitions", as follows: "If, in the
judgement of the DCMI Directorate, such changes of meaning
are likely to have substantial impact on either machine
processing of DCMI terms or the functional semantics of the
terms, then these changes will be reflected in a change of
name or namespace for the DCMI term or terms in question."

This implies that a proposed change of wording would need
to come before the Directorate for a decision on whether the
changes would have an impact "substantial" enough to require a
change of name, though it does not spell out the form that such
a proposal would take (e.g., would it require an "environmental
impact" assessment?).  

If the Directorate were to rule that the changes would have
a substantial impact, then presumably this would mean that
the proposal to change a wording would need to take the form
of a proposal for a new term.

However, if the Directorate were to rule that the changes
would _not_ have a substantial impact, it is not clear to me
from the UB Process document exactly how we would proceed.
Section 3 currently lists just four "Categories of Usage
Board Decisions" -- Recommended, Conforming, Obsolete,
and Registered.  Perhaps the "Categories of UB Decisions"
would need to look something like the following:

    3.1. Changes to existing terms
    3.2. Approval of new terms
    3.3. Conferral of status on terms or application profiles
         3.3.1. Recommended
         3.3.2. Conforming...

Tom