[sc34wg3] www.topicmaps.com (and topicmaps.org)
Hunting, Sam (LNG-EWR)
Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:32:23 -0400
History's history, and wounds heal. However, Murray's larger point is,
I take it, that community artifacts should in principle be preserved, and
That OCLC has an orderly process for doing so. (By artifacts I include
Both deliverables and sites.) This seems uncontroversial to me.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] www.topicmaps.com (and topicmaps.org)
* Sam Hunting
| +1 but would reframe the issue to the positive proposal of following
| the best practices of Dublin Core with respect to artifacts
| generated by the topic map community.
You lost me here. What best practices do you mean?
Reweaving a portion of Murray's orginal post on this matter in the thread:
I'm dismayed to see that the current site does not (as do many
| places where standards and specifications are provided online)
| contain backlinks to the earlier versions of the XTM 1.0
| Specification, specifically the December 4th "AG Review"
| version, where there was still a quorum that could be considered
| TopicMaps.Org, i.e., that group of people who stood together on
| a stage. That document remains important for both historical and
| community interest. I don't mean to open up those old wounds,
| but they in large part exist because of a lack of concern over
| the technical as well as emotional needs of our community
| (without even venturing into the legal). I would *truly* hope
| that this would not be repeated once again by pulling the
| site offline, erasing the remaining history.
| As for modifying the site with some prominent notice or making
| severe alterations (such as removing the content and replacing
| it with solely a notice), I think that would be a similar
| violence. If there's any question as to how this can
| be done in a more reasonable way, I would suggest
| hecking the Dublin Core site, particularly
| DCMI labels superceded documents on their index page, and then
| on the actual document they simply add a line stating the
| document "has been replaced by" and a link to the new one.
| Their old documents remain a DCMI Recommendation (as they
| should), even after being superceded. There is no attempt to
| hide, cover, or remove historical documents. They are also
| important when upgrading legacy software and documentation.