innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: Status of Proposals to the Usage Board
See also:
Created: 2004-09-14
Agenda frozen: 2004-10-02 07:25, Saturday
Archived: 2004-11-10
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Note: If any of the links below are broken, please refer to 
                   the meeting packet
                   for copies of the key documents discussed at the meeting.

Shepherd: Tom

As of August 2004, it would seem we have slipped into the
practice of labelling proposals to the Usage Board as "DCMI
Working Drafts". However, this status does not seem to be
justified by the Usage Board Process document.

According to the current DCMI Publication Policy [2], a DCMI
Working Draft is defined as follows:

    DCMI Working Drafts are documents under discussion in a
    DCMI Working Group. After discussion and consensus in
    the DCMI Working Group, the document is submitted to
    the DCMI Managing Director for approval through DCMI's
    formal approval process. Publication as a DCMI Working
    draft does not imply endorsement of any kind by DCMI.

Stuart points out that some proposals (e.g., from the DCMI
Education WG) are every bit "documents under discussion in
a DCMI Working Group" as is the Abstract Model, and that if
the differentiations are more fine-grained, this does not
show from the definition of a working document.

Tom replies that the scope of "proposals to UB" and the
category "working drafts" do not quite match. A working draft
is by definition the product of a working group, but according
to UB Process, a proposal can come from other sources as well.

Moreover, some proposers take the additional step of
cutting-and-pasting DCMI headers for their proposals.
The danger here is that unapproved proposals could appear to
be official DCMI documents.

In Shanghai, I would like to briefly discuss and clarify this
issue in the context of a broader policy for the preservation
and persistence of UB meeting documentation [1].