SUO: Latest Draft Ballot Questions
At 22:15 2003-05-23 +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> Dear John,
>
> I recommend not specifying ISO 11179. You might end up deciding to use
> it, but having taken a look, I consider it inappropriate unless you
> are only concerned with data models.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to reference ISO/IEC 11179-3 now -- that's an implementation approach towards the development of the standard. Certainly, later on we can decide how to handle the registry aspect.
I think I've made this point more than once, but ISO/IEC 11179 isn't just for data models (nor is UML just for data models). There are many other applications of 11179. For example, in one application, we use 11179-3 for multilingual terminology management.
Based on everything said so far, ISO/IEC 11179-3 sounds pretty useful -- probably at least a 90% job on what we need. I don't know about the other 10% because (still) I haven't seen good working definitions for "ontology". :-)
> There are several alternative metadata standards that can be considered,
> perhaps the best known is the Dublin Core.
The Dublin Core standard (now an ISO standard) is unlikely to be particularly useful -- using the approach above, I'd describe it as a 5% solution because we'd have to create everything ourselves to lay upon DC. Not all metadata is the same. (Of course, you knew that.)
-FF
______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards/Products/Services for Information/Communication Technologies