REVIEW OF PROCESS DOCUMENT (http://dublincore.org/usage/documents/process/) 
Stuart Sutton

2007-03-12

SECTION 6.1.  Application Profiles Subject to Review

    We still do not have a definitive definition of a "DCMI
    Strategic Activity."  It is framed as the primary mechanism
    for determining which initiatives will be bringing application
    profiles to the Usage Board.

SECTION 6.2.  Documentation of Application Profiles

    The section states that the applicant must include
    "an identifier of the element set where [the term] is
    defined, ideally in the form of URIs for individual terms."
    Since the terms have to conform to the Abstract Model,
    don't we require "URIs for the individual terms"?

SECTIONS 6.4 through 6.8 are numbered incorrectly.  There is no section 6.3.

SECTION 6.5.  Evaluation of terms in Application Profiles.  

    The section speaks of the "use of terms related to Dublin
    Core ... will be evaluated from the standpoint of semantic
    conformance, grammatical principle (eg, 'dumb-down'),
    clarity, and good practice."  Doesn't this mean "terms
    related to Dublin Core" and not "use of terms related to
    Dublin Core"?

SECTION 6.8.  Persistent identifiers for reviewed Application Profiles.

    The section states: "Review represents a form of
    recognition, and its URL will be persistent for purposes
    of citation."  Which URL?  The Application Profile or
    the Usage Board review?

SECTION 7.2.  Assignment of DCMI term URIs and status.

    This section states: "New terms deemed in compliance
    with the DCMI Abstract Model may be given URIs in DCMI
    namespaces and assigned a status of conforming."  Does this
    really mean "may be given," or is it "will be given."
    If it is "may be given," what's the criteria for being in?

SECTION 8.  Proposals for endorsement of terms in other namespaces for use within Application Profiles.

    This section says that terms from other name spaces in
    application profiles need to be reviewed for conformance
    to the Abstract Model.  The section actually does not say
    anything about assigning a status to those terms; BUT, the
    section title speaks of "endorsement" which seems wrong
    to me.  Endorsement (as defined in section 3) speaks of
    endorsing "assertions" by another that a term conforms
    (e.g., the LOC relators) and not that the term itself
    conforms.  It seems to me that what we are talking about
    here in this section is "conforming" and not "endorsed."